Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Kieran Mullan ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that concern, which I share, and we are looking at that in terms of the passage of the Bill. As I have stated, the duty would be on the public authority, official or subcontractor to disclose all the information to the chair of the inquiry or investigation.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Perhaps the point the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills was making was that the Minister referred to a separate piece of legislation, the Public Records Act 1958, and I am not sure that that legislation includes things like contractors and subcontractors.
Alex Davies-Jones
The information provided to the inquiry would be covered and, as per the provisions of this Bill, subcontractors would be caught under the duty of candour and would have to disclose any relevant information, as per the information disclosed in that Act. I hope that clarifies it.
Dr Mullan
I hope I can be of assistance. I think the clause is about the public authority’s obligation to explain to its employees all the things they can do to raise a concern. I do not think that it is directed at the individuals who might be required to do things. It might be better for it to say that the authority must ensure that that information is available. If we read it in the context of the public authority’s obligations, it is about what the authority should tell people, rather than placing any obligation in relation to individuals’ actions. I hope that might explain it more clearly.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Kieran Mullan ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger, on this historic and momentous Bill Committee. With your permission, I will say a few words about just how momentous this is.
Last week, this Committee heard evidence directly from the Hillsborough families about the Bill and what it means to them. I know that the Committee will agree that that was a huge privilege for us. The Bill is of great and national importance to so many people up and down the country, and we will not play politics with this legislation. I hope my colleagues in the Opposition will do the same. What we will do is listen: we will listen to the families, Hillsborough Law Now and the members of this Committee. It is right that they and the Committee push us and challenge us. They have my commitment that if we can find ways to improve the Bill, we will.
Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. They have each tirelessly campaigned for justice for the Hillsborough families, and played no small part in seeing this legislation brought forward. I am honoured to have them by my side in Committee.
Of course, we have all said this time and again, but we would absolutely not be here without the families. This is for them, and for those who have campaigned tirelessly for so long to seek justice and to ensure that no one ever has to go through what they went through. This is not just for the Hillsborough families, but for anyone who has experienced cover-up or had to fight for the truth, and for the memories of all those who are no longer with us.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As we consider the clause and new clause 2, I want to be clear that the Opposition recognise the importance of the Bill’s overarching aims. Candour, transparency, frankness and, above all, the requirement that public officials act in the public interest are principles that I am sure Members from all parties support.
As we commented on during evidence sessions about the chief coroner, it would be quite wrong to portray good-faith efforts to ensure that we give due consideration to each and every possible implication of the Bill as in any way not giving due regard to its noble aims, in particular the considerable effort and good intentions of the many campaigners supporting it, including the ones we heard from during the evidence sessions. As the Minister commented, I do not think that anyone could have been anything but deeply moved and reflective on hearing the experiences that the witnesses went through in such appalling circumstances. They were a limited group, but one made up not just of those affected by Hillsborough but those affected by many other scandals in which the state and its bodies covered up and mistreated people.
Ultimately, even if we believe that the Bill could be improved, and we will hold the Government to account for any unintended consequences, we support the Bill and do not expect to oppose it on Third Reading. I hope that that is an important message for the campaigners supporting it. However, we want to probe the Government’s thinking and suggest possible improvements.
Before we come to the specifics of our new clause, I will comment on clause 1 as a whole, as it lays out the core purpose of the Bill and highlights just how far the political class as a whole has to come in delivering candour, and how contentious these matters can be. In the very weeks we have been considering this Bill, with the Government professing to want to drive further improvements in the candour and frankness of accountability, we have been having a heated and highly contested public debate about what constitutes candour and frankness. I raise that debate not to further discuss it in Committee—it would not be appropriate to engage in it for its merits—but just to highlight exactly how contentious such things are. We have a Chancellor who, in my view, has clearly failed to operate with candour and frankness, but I am sure that view is fiercely opposed by other members of the Committee.
The Chair
Order. I ask the Opposition Front Bencher to stick to the matter under debate.
Dr Mullan
Thank you, Sir Roger. Committee members have been fiercely disagreeing on something that relates directly to the matters that we are considering today on frankness and candour. I think that demonstrates just how challenging these things will be. We are the politicians who are putting forward this legislation.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member accept that matters of party political difference in a political system are not the same as telling the truth about what happened in a disaster or an event? There is a distinction.
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. The Bill is focused on those examples that are clear and egregious, where it is easy to say that there has been a failure of candour or a deliberate attempt to cover up. The legislation will cover many other situations, however, including Members of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are expected to operate with a degree of frankness and candour, and yet just this week we have been fiercely debating whether one of our own has or has not done that. It is important for Members to reflect on the wideness of the ramifications outside the purely obvious examples of what might constitute candour, or a lack of it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have, in yesterday’s resignation of the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, quite a sensible example of what he is trying to express? That gentleman was due to be in front of a Select Committee of this House this morning, but by resigning, he has skipped being held to account for what he must know about the situation. Candour should surely also apply to those who have resigned.
If I may, Sir Roger, I refer back to the fact that one of the deepest problems has been the resignation of senior police officers. Because they have resigned, they skip away over the horizon and are not able to be held to account. There is only one way that someone should not be held to account, which is through not being on this earth any longer.
The Chair
Order. Sorry I have to keep intervening; let us get this right from the beginning, and then it will stay right all the way through. Interventions must be interventions, not speeches. There is a degree of leeway in Committee that does not exist on the Floor of the House, but nevertheless, please try to confine interventions to brevity if possible, because otherwise Members will be here all night. I concede to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that, while the Bill clearly relates —and has related very heavily in terms of evidence—to Hillsborough and Grenfell, it covers a much wider range of issues. We need to remember that.
Dr Mullan
Thank you for that further clarification, Sir Roger.
These issues are absolutely live and happening all the time—this week alone, we have seen examples of it—and we need to understand the implications of the Bill. I am far from alone in recognising the difficulty in defining terms such as “candour” and “public interest”. John Coggon, professor of law at the University of Bristol law school, writes:
“The public interest has no single, fixed definition. Even as a technical term of art its sense varies both for being context dependent and for being a question that may be settled by different sorts of institutional actor. It may, for instance, demand consideration of national security, national economic interest, protection of health, maintenance of a justice system, protection of fundamental rights. And determinations may be made by courts, politicians, legislators, executive agencies, and so on. Each can and will bring different forms and ranges of consideration to the process of determining what the public interest demands, and whether those demands are compelling.”
Anyone who has spent any time inside a public body—a police force, a regulator or a Government Department—knows that the public interest can mean very different things to different people. It is shaped by context, role, circumstance and sometimes professional norms. What one official believes to be in the public interest, a Minister, senior civil servant or statutory body might see very differently. That is not mere theory; it is the daily reality of modern governance.
Questions were raised during the evidence sessions about how the public interest might be used inappropriately in defence of an allegation of misconduct in public office. As new clause 2 points to, paragraph 1(8)(b) of schedule 1 specifically allows for the withholding of information in the public interest. Failing in that area could lead to both those we would wish not to be prosecuted being prosecuted and those we want to see prosecuted escaping justice. It is an important area of how the Bill will operate.
I am not so ambitious as to suggest that through the Bill the Committee will be able to create a perfect definition of public interest, but I speak in support of the new clause in an attempt to ensure that the Government recognise that they need to properly engage with that issue if the Bill is to be successful. A definition of the public interest need not be exhaustive, as I have said, but the wide-ranging ramifications of the Bill place an onus on the Government to ensure that the frontline civil servant of any kind has somewhere to look and turn to when wrestling with these matters—a starting point that might help them to structure their thinking and make decisions.
By failing to define the term at all, even in the most basic way, the Bill risks giving us a duty that is challenging to operate for a junior civil servant. It risks more uncertainty about compliance, inconsistency between institutions and even potential litigation where prosecutors or courts are left to decide after the fact what Parliament must have meant. The obvious challenging scenario is when officials need to consider situations where there are competing public interests—national security versus transparency, value for money versus speed of delivery, or personal privacy versus public accountability. Without more assistance for thinking those matters through, how does an official protect themselves from the—possibly criminal—allegation that their judgment call was not in the public interest among competing interests?
The new clause does not attempt to dictate exactly what public interest must mean; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a structure or framework in regulations, subject to approval by both Houses. Ultimately, if this legislation is to achieve the cultural change that the Government claim it will, the foundations must be clear and easy to understand. Public officials should not be left purely guessing what Parliament might have meant, or how we expected them to weigh these issues—Parliament should tell them. New clause 2 offers the Government the opportunity to do exactly that, and I hope they will take it.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill as a whole to ensure that public authorities and public officials perform their functions at all times with candour, transparency and frankness, and in the public interest. As the clause describes, the Bill sets out those duties in the substantive provisions that follow. The clause does not have any separate legal effect itself; it is designed to set out clearly and simply the intention behind the Bill to assist those who will be subject to it and the general public in their understanding.
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to define exactly what is meant by the term “public interest” in clause 1. Clause 1 is a purpose clause and does not have any legal effect in and of itself, separate from the other provisions in the Bill. It sets out the intention behind the Bill, and how the Bill achieves that intention by describing the relevant provisions.
In this context, acting in the public interest means fulfilling the obligations and duties in the remainder of the Bill that arise from it; it means being candid at inquiries and investigations; and it means that those working for public authorities must adhere to the codes and ethics required by the Bill. In general, “acting in the public interest” is usually not defined in legislation, as the hon. Gentleman said. This is because what is in the public interest will depend on the circumstance and context of that particular situation. Seeking to define what it means might have the effect of narrowing what could be considered to be in the public interest.
In schedule 1, the public interest is referred to in the context of public interest immunity. Public interest immunity is an established concept in law: it is a rule of evidence where documents are withheld if their disclosure would be injurious to the public interest. What is the “public interest” will be dependent on the particular circumstances, and we should not seek to constrain this or undermine a very long-established legal doctrine that is applied by the courts. The Inquiries Act 2005 and other legislation already contain provisions of this kind to ensure that appropriate protections are attached to sensitive information, which the Bill is replicating. I hope that clarifies the purpose of clause 1 and why defining “public interest” would not be appropriate and could actually hinder proceedings.
Dr Mullan
The Minister rightly describes how tightly the courts consider these matters in detail. As the Bill puts a whole range of very junior civil servants in the firing line, does she at least accept that guidance or materials might be helpful to assist a broader audience in how they approach these issues in their day-to-day work?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention and the whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure exactly that. Obviously, there will be guidance in the codes of ethics that are produced, and public authorities will probably provide training for their individual public servants who will now be captured by the Bill, if, as I hope, it receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act. I am due to attend a session at the University of Liverpool to look at exactly how we can implement the Bill, should it become legislation and reach the statute book. All of that is being taken into consideration to advise everyone about what is expected of them under the duty of candour. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 2 to a vote, and I pledge to work with him on exactly that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Morrison
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. These amendments do nothing more than fix something in the current draft of the Bill, which seems inadvertently to have carved out the security services—an area that could be strengthened, as we heard during the evidence session last week. The amendments seek to extend the duty of candour and assistance to the intelligence services as organisations, ensuring that they as bodies are required to be open and co-operative with the inquiries and any investigations. The amendment balances accountability with national security, by stating that direction will not be given to public officials
“if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence”.
Several of our witnesses last week gave evidence that laid out various examples of how the security services had failed to be fully candid, disregarded accountability, and, at times, misled inquiries. We also know that the Government assured campaigners, Members and other interested parties that there would be no carve-out for the security services in the Bill. The security services do an incredible job in keeping us safe and ensuring that our country’s interests are protected. It is right that their work is covered by the secrecy Act; no one wishes to change that. However, because of that power they should be held to highest standards of accountability. We know that in recent history that has not been the case.
Last week we heard from Pete Weatherby, who, as well as working with the Hillsborough families, supported several families impacted by the Manchester Arena bombing. He said:
“There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing…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.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 6, Q3.]
The amendment would ensure, as much as any law can, that that could not happen again, by explicitly ensuring that the security services are accountable to this Bill and therefore to a public who willingly consent to how these organisations work to protect us and our country. This amendment would not endanger national security. It would not impact the way in which some evidence is required to be provided in closed sessions. It would provide the security services with the necessary safeguards to ensure that secret and classified information is protected.
This is what happens now. We heard from the journalist Daniel De Simone, who worked on the agent X story, where the security services tried to mislead and were found out. His testimony stated:
“I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.”––[Official Report, Public Office (Accountability) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025; c. 95, Q138.]
Because of that, it is vital that we do not allow any carving out, intentional or otherwise, of the security services, to ensure that they, too, are held to account and must tell the truth. That will strengthen not only their work, but the trust that we place in them.
Dr Mullan
I emphasise that we need clarity on this. Those of us who were able to attend the meeting with the intelligence services will know that they seemed to provide quite a clear account of their individual personal responsibility and all the ways in which they thought the Bill would affect them. That was quite clearly contradicted in our evidence from other witnesses. I am grateful to the Minister for sending round a further note to Committee members this morning, and for our brief chat ahead of this sitting. Even that note raises further contradictions, however, because it says, and I quote, that “the individual public officials working for the UK intelligence services are capable of being caught by the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour”. It lists some other ones, but it includes the duty of candour. Further down, it says, “the Bill specifies that the duty of candour and assistance can only be addressed to public authorities and not individual public officials”.
The Minister was able to give me a brief, informal explanation of that, but I do think this is extremely important. It may be that people are happy for the security services to be excluded to a certain extent, but we have to vote on a shared understanding of what exactly the Bill does in relation to them as entire organisations, as well as to the people who work for them and those who are in charge. I would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on that.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for raising those important points. In this Bill, we have aimed to ensure candour while protecting national security. As it stands, inquiries and investigations will be able to demand any information and assistance they require from the intelligence services. Where national security information is concerned, the agency as a whole will provide that assistance to the inquiry or investigation by complying with a compliance direction, rather than individuals directly in their own right.
To balance that, and to ensure that there are no gaps, carve-outs or exclusions, those in charge of the agencies are subject to specific requirements to put arrangements in place for individuals to maintain records of information relating to any acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation, and to provide information to the authority to ensure that the duty is complied with as set out in clause 6. Rightly, a failure to have these arrangements in place will result in criminal sanctions.
Intelligence services obtain and retain sensitive security and intelligence information in order to protect the public from national security threats. Vital public interests, including national security, would be at real risk of harm from the unrestricted disclosure of this sensitive information. We all share the same aims here—ensuring that candour is in place while protecting national security and the public.
Taking on board the points raised by Hillsborough Law Now and others, we constructed clause 6 in such a way as to ensure that there is a secure process that the intelligence services can work through so that any information required by an inquiry or investigation reaches that place safely, so that there can be full candour. However, we have heard the concerns from Hillsborough Law Now and from members of this Committee about our provisions. I assure hon. Members that the Government have taken their points on board, and we will commit to working with them and others actively to consider steps to address this in time for Report.
I turn to the other amendments, which set out that the intelligence authorities are to be listed as a public authority for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance, and the code of ethical conduct in schedule 2. Clause 6 already makes it clear that the duty applies to the intelligence services as it applies to all other public authorities; therefore, it is beyond doubt that they are included, as a public authority, in the Bill.
We have not set out an exhaustive list of public authorities in schedule 2 to avoid unintentionally excluding some bodies by failing to list them. No individual Department or arm’s length body of central Government is included in the list for that purpose. If we begin to list public bodies, there is a risk that we imply that those not listed are not covered, which could weaken the Bill. I urge the hon. Member for Cheadle to withdraw his amendment, but I reiterate my commitment to working with Members on a way forward to capture all the concerns raised both in the Committee and outside of it.
Mr Morrison
I thank the shadow Minister for the points that he made; he is spot on that the lack of clarity in the Bill, particularly surrounding what came out of the evidence sessions, raises more questions than answers. However, I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are happy to work with us on tightening those gaps before Report. This is not about unrestricted evidence; it is about getting to the truth, which must be our focus throughout. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Mullan
I beg to move amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) Inquiries under subsection (1) include those designated by the Secretary of State as local inquiries into grooming gangs.”
This amendment would apply the Duty of Candour to the five local grooming gangs’ inquiries announced by the Government and any further ones established.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 29, line 9, after “an inquiry” insert
“, independent panel or review established by a Minister”.
This amendment ensures that the statutory duty of candour and assistance extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak to amendment 3, and I also welcome the intention behind amendment 1. Amendment 3 relates to the scope of the duty of candour as it applies to non-statutory inquiries. Members will know that the Bill does not just impose a duty of candour on public bodies in major statutory inquiries that are set up under the Inquiries Act 2005; it allows Ministers to apply that same duty to non-statutory inquiries—or inquiries that, for various sensible reasons, may not require the full statutory machinery but none the less investigate matters of profound public concern.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 sets out the conditions under which a non-statutory inquiry may fall within the Bill: it must be initiated by a Minister; it must be intended to produce a published report; and the Minister must certify that the events in question have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern. That is a broadly drawn but important framework. However, there is a real risk that some of the most sensitive, complex and deeply distressing inquiries currently being established will fall entirely outside this regime.
I refer specifically to the local grooming gangs inquiries announced by the Government. These inquiries were promised to victims, survivors and affected communities as part of the commitment to shine a light on failures by public agencies over many decades to protect vulnerable children. They will be examining events that could not be more clearly connected to public concern and public confidence. Unless they are expressly captured by the Bill, however, the public bodies involved will not necessarily be subject to the statutory duty of candour that the Bill intends to deliver; it will be left to the whims of the Government of the day. Given the chequered history of this Administration, that is not a position that we would want to be left in, and it is not a position that many victims would want to be left in.
The amendment is therefore designed to remove any doubt by making it clear that the non-statutory inquiries designated by the Secretary of State as local grooming gang inquiries fall squarely within paragraph 2. It is a simply, clarifying amendment that protects victims, the integrity of the process and the public from the possibility of these inquiries falling into a grey area.
It is worth reminding the Committee why this matters. Across multiple towns and cities, victims were failed because agencies did not share information, confront uncomfortable truths and, in some cases, tell the public the full story. A duty of candour is not a mere formality in this context; it is an essential means by which we ensure that the same patterns of silence, defensiveness and institutional self-protection do not re-emerge.
If the Bill’s purpose is to raise standards in public life, to restore trust and to ensure openness in the face of institutional wrongdoing, surely these inquires—the very ones where a failure of candour has had the most devastating impacts—must be included explicitly. The Government may well argue that the wording already allows these inquiries to be covered. If that is the case, there is no harm in making it clear. If it is not the case, there is every reason for us to fix that today.
This amendment is not partisan. We heard from Mayor Burnham about his direct experience of a local grooming gang inquiry that lacked a duty of candour, and how he felt the inquiry would have benefited enormously from one. He supported our amendment to ensure that all other local inquiries would be subject to such a duty once the Bill became law.
The timing may not be perfect, but given the speed with which the Government seek to proceed with the Bill, and the positive impact it could have even now if public officials knew that this was incoming, I cannot see any reason why the Government would oppose the measure. It is straightforward and would ensure that when victims and survivors are told that lessons will be learned, we will do everything possible to guarantee that that is done honestly, fully and transparently by ensuring that inquiries have all the information they need.
Amendment 1—I believe this was touched on earlier, in relation to panels and what will fully constitute inclusion in the Bill—is helpful to ensure that when a Minister commissions one of these important panels, it is not simply left to them to decide whether it suits them to include the duty of candour. I therefore welcome that amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to confirm that they will be. They are not currently, but the Government are tabling an amendment to cover that point, and we will come to it later in Committee. Should that amendment be made, the Bill will cover those local authority investigations.
The Cabinet Office is undertaking further work to look at how we reform inquiries. As part of that, we will consider how the different types of inquiries, reviews and investigations could be more clearly defined, and when and how they could best be used. That will inform how the duty is used.
The duty of candour and assistance is a powerful tool to ensure co-operation with investigations, but it would not be useful in all circumstances. Most reviews focus on matters of policy or technical issues— for example, the curriculum and assessment review, the net zero review and the review of the future of women’s football. In those cases, applying the duty would be unnecessary and might risk making reviews more difficult to establish and slower to report. Where the duty is applied, it must be properly monitored and enforced, and therefore frameworks for compliance and the protection of information need to be in place. We must avoid unintentionally impeding or delaying certain types of investigations by introducing unnecessary and unhelpful processes and bureaucracy. We therefore think the Bill strikes the right balance in which investigations it applies to, with the power in the Bill providing us with the tools and flexibility we need to extend the duty where it could be useful.
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about how we move forward with her campaign. She has been an incredible and ferocious campaigner for the Primodos families for many years. I have met her and the Primodos families, and I am committed to working with her on a way forward to ensure that the duty of candour can assist.
Amendment 3 is designed to apply the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries that the Secretary of State has designated as local inquiries into grooming gangs. I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. As he will be aware, we are moving at pace to establish a national inquiry into grooming gangs under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will be overseen by an independent commission with statutory powers to compel evidence and testimony so that institutions can be held to account for current and historic failures. The inquiry will be independent of Government and designed to command the confidence of victims and survivors and the wider public.
The Bill already applies the duty to statutory and non-statutory inquiries called by Ministers, including this new inquiry. To strengthen the Bill, we have also tabled an amendment extending the duty to inquiries called by local authorities, and we will debate that shortly. That amendment, combined with the existing provisions in the Bill, will enable the duty to apply to either local or national inquiries into grooming gangs. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Mullan
On amendment 1, I accept the Government’s intention to clarify further how these things will operate. On panels and non-statutory inquiries, although there is sometimes in Government a resistance to public inquiries for the wrong reasons, sometimes it is because they are expensive and time-consuming. The real opportunity for applying the duty of candour more widely is that if we can ensure that non-public inquiries get all the information they need, they are much more likely to be successful, thereby avoiding a future public inquiry with all the associated costs that lawyers make a huge amount of money from.
On amendment 3, although the Minister outlined the future public inquiry, the local inquiries have not been cancelled. There is clearly a view that they must also proceed. I cannot see any reason why we would not want them to proceed on the basis that they are subject to the duty of candour.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the shadow Minister that, should the Bill receive Royal Assent, its provisions will apply immediately to ongoing investigations and inquiries. That includes local inquiries, if we pass the amendment that the Government have tabled. We cannot allow that currently, because the Bill has not become law, but once it has done, it will cover existing ongoing inquiries and investigations and those that are yet to commence.
Tessa Munt
I am delighted to have got to this bit. I speak to this clause in particular, because I am extremely concerned that the duty of candour should capture subcontractors and the contractors to subcontractors. It is unbelievably common for those committed to carrying out contracts with local authorities, Government or public bodies generally to subcontract and subcontract and subcontract. There is absolutely no reason why those organisations and the people involved should not fall under the duty—those people are often the whistleblowers who tell the primary organisation, or their own, what it is that they have seen. I feel strongly that we should ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider, where there is subcontracting in place, should comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry, investigation or all the other panels and various things that we have referred to this morning.
The duty should apply not only to the primary service provider, but to the subcontractors, whether individuals or organisations. That would close a potential accountability gap by making it clear that all parties involved in providing a service must co-operate fully with inquiries, investigations and panels. It would help to ensure that relevant information is not withheld purely due to contractual arrangement. That would support comprehensive scrutiny of decisions, actions, omissions and service delivery.
Dr Mullan
I rise briefly to support the amendment and the points made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is about not just existing contractual arrangements, but how there might be perverse incentives for people to create different structures if they think that, through contracting or subcontracting, they will escape the accountability under the Bill. I am keen to hear from the Minister.
Probably the example that everyone has in mind is the Post Office scandal. That was a direct contractor, but it could have had subcontractors and so on. When the Post Office was conducting its private investigations, it might have used subcontractors to do some of those investigations. That would not be an unusual step for an organisation to take, so it is important that we get clarity on this issue.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The amendment would apply the duty of candour to subcontractors as well as contractors of a public authority, as has been outlined. In the Bill, we have sought to extend the duty into the private sector in a manner that is proportionate and effective. The focus is, and must be, public authorities and public officials—those whose role is to serve the public. That has to be the starting point. The Bill then extends the obligations of the duty of candour and assistance to private bodies and individuals that either had a statutory health and safety obligation in connection with the incident under investigation or were a contractor to a public authority and, in that capacity, had a significant impact on members of the public in connection with the incident. As we have heard, these provisions are designed to capture the equivalents of Fujitsu in the Post Office inquiry.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that intervention. As I have stated, if there was a statutory health and safety obligation in connection with an incident under investigation, then, yes, those individuals would be captured by the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
If there had been an investigation or inquiry into that then, yes, it would.
Subcontractors are one or more stages removed. They are responsible to the main or another contractor. Where relevant, we would expect a main contractor to account for the performance and actions of a subcontractor and be candid in doing so. Statutory inquiries and inquests already have the ability to compel evidence from such persons if necessary. Therefore, on balance, we do not think it necessary or proportionate to extend the duty to all subcontractors. I therefore urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 days, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister outlined, these regulations make modest and technical changes to the Judicial Appointments Commission—an additional professional commissioner and some tidying up of the eligibility for the senior tribunal commissioner.
Even technical changes, however, sit within a wider landscape. We now have a judicial system in which unelected bodies have accumulated significant power, but without the accountability to Parliament or to the public that should accompany it. We saw that clearly with the recent controversy of the Sentencing Council’s two-tier sentencing guidelines, which would have meant different punishments for the same crime depending on ethnicity, faith background or immigration status. That represents a profound departure from the basic Conservative principle of equality before the law, and is every bit as much a departure from what the public instinctively and rightly expect: that sentencing should be based on the offence committed, not the personal characteristics of the offender.
Although the Government now claim to oppose two tier-justice, they continue to defend and even expand the structures created under the last Labour Government —the very architecture that allowed these distortions to emerge in the first place. The JAC is one such body. It was created in the Blair era as a part of a constitutional re-engineering that removed power from elected Ministers and transferred it into arm’s length structures. What was marketed as modernising the constitution has instead weakened accountability, fractured responsibility and left Ministers able to duck the consequences of poor appointments or failing standards.
That is why we set out our intention to replace the JAC with a judicial vetting committee within the Lord Chancellor’s office, bringing real transparency and accountability back into judicial appointments, while maintaining judicial independence in the courtroom. We do not believe that layering more commissioners on top of an outdated structure will restore public trust, nor do we believe that expanding the body responsible for judicial appointments without addressing the structural weaknesses that I have outlined will deliver the fairness and impartiality that people expect. We want a system where the Lord Chancellor, answerable to Parliament and the public, has proper responsibility for judicial appointments, supported by a transparent judicial vetting committee to ensure that appointments are made on merit but with clear accountability. That is how we restore trust—not by expanding arm’s length bodies, but by ensuring clear democratic lines of accountability. The public want a justice system that is more accountable, and we will continue in the months and years ahead to make the case for that.
Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 days, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister outlined, these regulations make modest and technical changes to the Judicial Appointments Commission—an additional professional commissioner and some tidying up of the eligibility for the senior tribunal commissioner.
Even technical changes, however, sit within a wider landscape. We now have a judicial system in which unelected bodies have accumulated significant power, but without the accountability to Parliament or to the public that should accompany it. We saw that clearly with the recent controversy of the Sentencing Council’s two-tier sentencing guidelines, which would have meant different punishments for the same crime depending on ethnicity, faith background or immigration status. That represents a profound departure from the basic Conservative principle of equality before the law, and is every bit as much a departure from what the public instinctively and rightly expect: that sentencing should be based on the offence committed, not the personal characteristics of the offender.
Although the Government now claim to oppose two tier-justice, they continue to defend and even expand the structures created under the last Labour Government —the very architecture that allowed these distortions to emerge in the first place. The JAC is one such body. It was created in the Blair era as a part of a constitutional re-engineering that removed power from elected Ministers and transferred it into arm’s length structures. What was marketed as modernising the constitution has instead weakened accountability, fractured responsibility and left Ministers able to duck the consequences of poor appointments or failing standards.
That is why we set out our intention to replace the JAC with a judicial vetting committee within the Lord Chancellor’s office, bringing real transparency and accountability back into judicial appointments, while maintaining judicial independence in the courtroom. We do not believe that layering more commissioners on top of an outdated structure will restore public trust, nor do we believe that expanding the body responsible for judicial appointments without addressing the structural weaknesses that I have outlined will deliver the fairness and impartiality that people expect. We want a system where the Lord Chancellor, answerable to Parliament and the public, has proper responsibility for judicial appointments, supported by a transparent judicial vetting committee to ensure that appointments are made on merit but with clear accountability. That is how we restore trust—not by expanding arm’s length bodies, but by ensuring clear democratic lines of accountability. The public want a justice system that is more accountable, and we will continue in the months and years ahead to make the case for that.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I do not have any questions. We are short of time, so I would rather allow other members of the Committee to ask questions.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Deborah Coles: Thank you for the question. It has been a long-standing campaign of ours to try and sort out what we perceive is a real inequality of arms. The best way to describe it is that it is a traumatic and distressing process to go through an inquest into the death of your loved one in any event, but to try and navigate those processes without your own individual legal representation, and even be expected to ask questions yourself or rely on the coroner to do so on your behalf, is not only extremely unfair but I think perpetuates the sense that the system is not working to get to the truth and to deliver the answers that you want as a bereaved person about how your loved one died.
I can think of so many examples since INQUEST was set up where families still today talk about the retraumatising nature of the inquest process. What legal representation can do as well is enhance the really important preventive function that an inquest can play in safeguarding lives in the future, but that is only where you have a family with the benefit of a lawyer to explore the areas of concern. In our experience, too often the default of state and corporate lawyers is to try and defend their reputations, to try and narrow the scope of the inquest process, and try and prevent consideration of the very serious issues that need exploring, particularly when we are talking here about how our work is predominantly around state-related deaths, where the state had a duty of care towards somebody. In our experience, it is only through legal representation and where families feel that they can play a meaningful and effective part in the process that the truth can come out.
Dr Mullan
Q
Deborah Coles: There is a lot to be said about the inconsistency of the coronial system. Different coroners approach their roles in very different ways. It is quite hard for an individual coroner when they are confronted with teams of state lawyers representing different interests to then try and properly represent the interests of an individual family. Some coroners can try and do that, but that does not take away from the fact that it is the relationship that the bereaved family have with their lawyer that can often ensure that the questions of the utmost importance to a bereaved family are actually asked.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Waters: It was two years ago exactly on this day that the inquest into my sister’s death started. We found out four days before the commencement of the inquest that our application for legal aid had been refused—four days. In preparation for that and the possibility that we might have to go into the inquest not represented or foot the bill ourselves, or the lawyers have to do it pro bono—why should they?—I read over 2,000 pages of disclosure evidence. It was very traumatic, as you can imagine, to read some of the details of what my sister went through and some of the medical reports and so on. That alone was traumatising.
A freedom of information request recently found out that Ofsted, which is one of three public bodies—interested parties—that our family were up against, spent £68,000 on external counsel alone and could not provide us with the figures for how much it had spent in its internal legal department. Ofsted has its own legal department—but it still spent £68,000 of taxpayers’ money on external counsel. Presumably, the other interested parties, Reading borough council and Berkshire NHS trust, will have spent similar amounts of money and also have their own internal legal departments. My family, as taxpayers, were indirectly paying the legal fees of the three bodies that had done harm to my sister. That just speaks volumes on the imbalance of power in this system.
It is really retraumatising that at your absolute lowest—and I really hope that no one in this room has been where I was—it is at that point that you suddenly have to navigate this entirely alien system. You do not have lessons at school on what an inquest is, where you find an inquest lawyer, what a prevention of future deaths report is, what kind of coroner you want or what kind of inquest you are going to get. But suddenly, when you are absolutely traumatised by a terrible and preventable death of a loved one, you have to find this stuff out. I am here speaking to you. I have been speaking publicly about what our family has been through and continues to go through—but for every person like me and the other witness, how many hundreds of people are there who are crushed by that system and are unable, for whatever quite legitimate reason, to stick up for themselves and inform themselves? Parity of arms is absolutely crucial and it cannot come soon enough.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Q
Thank you to the witnesses. I am very sorry to hear what happened.
Professor Waters: It is still going on.
Dr Mullan
Q
Lord Evans of Weardale: First, I should make it clear that I am a strong supporter of this Bill. I think it is very timely. It is clear that victims, members of the public, have been badly let down by public authorities over a number of years. I gave evidence to the infected blood inquiry. It is very clear that something needs to be done and I support the Bill. I support the inclusion of the intelligence services in the Bill and strongly support chapter 2, which I hope we will be able to get on to.
There is as much need for the intelligence services to be accountable as there is for any other public authority. It seems to me right that they should be included in the scope of this Bill. I also recognise that there are particular circumstances that mean that the mechanism for achieving accountability and candour might need to be different. Certainly from my previous role heading the service, there are two areas that I think are of potential concern. The first and most important area is that members of the service are under existing legal constraints on what they can say. It needs to be clear how they would be able to cope with this duty of candour, which will be set against their other existing legal duty of protecting information and handling sensitive information appropriately. That needs to be resolved, and I believe that the mechanism laid out in the Bill resolves it acceptably.
This is not about institutional defence of the agency or its reputation. The sort of information we are talking about is such that, for instance, its disclosure could identify a human source, which could lead to their exposure and potentially their death in the worst circumstances. It could also be information we have about an enemy or threat to the UK, whether that be a terrorist or foreign state, and if that state or terrorist group knew that we had the information, they could probably work out where we got it from. They would then be able to take steps to stop us from obtaining it in future, which would mean that we were less able to protect the country against foreign intelligence activity or terrorist planning, and therefore the ability of the agency to safeguard the country would be reduced. That is what you are trying to protect.
You have already cited my second point, which I acknowledge but do not see as the key point, and it is that any individual desk officer in MI5—I think this would probably be the same in MI6 or GCHQ—may see a very small part of a picture, but, particularly for very sensitive information, the need-to-know procedures are in place. They will not necessarily understand why a particular piece of information is very sensitive, or actually what the bigger picture is.
Bilaterally providing that information between an individual and an external scrutiny body brings two problems. First, the external scrutinising body may not be equipped to handle highly sensitive information, and therefore it might go astray, even with good will. Secondly, it is important that the overall understanding of the agency is disclosed to the investigating body, not just one picture or one part of it. That is why I think it makes sense for the responsibility to rest on the head of the agency.
I also looked with great interest to see what pressure there was on the head of the agency to respond to this. The fact that in certain circumstances there is a criminal liability on the head of the agency struck me as being quite a strong measure, and a measure that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Dr Mullan
Q
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
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.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Hilda Hammond and Jenni Hicks from the Hillsborough families. We have until 3.10 pm for this panel. Thanks for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Will you tell us who you are, please, for the record?
Jenni Hicks: Good afternoon, everybody, and apologies for the delay. There was a blockage on the line and our train was delayed for over an hour and a half, so apologies to everybody in the room. It is a privilege to be invited here for you to hear what I have to say. My name is Jenni Hicks. I lost my daughters Sarah, who was 19 years old, and Victoria, who was 15 years old, in the Hillsborough disaster. They were both unlawfully killed.
Hilda Hammond: Jenni has thanked you all for being patient with us. I am Hilda Hammond, widow of the late Philip Hammond, who was chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group. We lost our son at 14 years of age at Hillsborough. He went with the Boys’ Brigade.
Dr Mullan
Q
Jenni Hicks: What we did go through was that we did not get our truth for 24 years, which is cruel and unacceptable. That has to change. We had many, many challenges in that journey. The main challenge of all—on a personal level—was becoming childless, and all the grief and things that go with that. On top of that we then had a fight just to get the truth about how our daughters, Trevor’s and my daughters, died.
Obviously there was a huge state cover-up. There were lies and corruption going on, with horrendous and untrue things in the media. The Liverpool fans were wrongly blamed—and we are Liverpool fans, so not only were we bereaved, but we felt we were somehow at fault for our daughters’ deaths, too. The whole thing was horrendous. It actually prevents you from moving forward with your grief because it becomes about the event, and not so much about your loss. You have to deal with your loss at a later stage. The whole thing was absolutely cruel—I really have no words to describe how awful it was, and it must not happen to other people in the future.
We had, as I say, various challenges on our journey for the truth. The Peter Taylor inquiry was the first one. Peter Taylor did get to the truth, but the Crown Prosecution Service did not act upon that. If the CPS had acted on the Taylor inquiry, we could have got to our truth more quickly. Various things happened—is this the kind of thing you want to know? We had a judicial review. You probably know the whole of the things that we went through. To be quite truthful, we tried everything, including a private prosecution, but we seemed to be snookered every inch of the way.
The one thing that did get us our truth was the Hillsborough independent panel, the independent panel and the attorneys following up on its results—they were absolutely marvellous, actually. That was down to Lord Michael Wills and Gordon Brown, and to Theresa May, who carried on with that when the Conservative Government came in. If it had not been for those people, we would still have been looking for our truth. The Hillsborough independent panel findings led to Dominic Grieve quashing the original inquest verdict of accidental death and announcing a new inquest, which of course, finally—after 26 years, would you believe it—meant we got the correct inquest verdict of unlawful killing.
I am trying to précis this down, because I know we do not have a lot of time, but that is basically a very quick version of what went on, but to me, it was the Hillsborough independent panel. I have read through the Bill and things, but I would like to see the public advocate team that we have now used in a similar way, to be able to retrieve the documentation that you need. If we had been able to do that at a far earlier stage, we would not have had to wait 26 years for the correct inquest verdict. I really do think that the public advocate team should have powers similar to those of the HIP—or the same as the panel had. In the first instance, they should not just be about tea and sympathy and pointing you in the right direction; they should be about more than that. It should be about being able to retrieve the documentation needed, particularly if there are lies being told and it is a state cover-up. We need that documentation far sooner.
For me, with my personal experiences, without that we will still have long delays. Yes, it will be good to have a better duty of candour, a duty of candour with consequences, and obviously I think we should have more a duty of conduct, rather than just a code of conduct. That would make a huge difference as well. They should be statutory duties, not just codes of conduct, which is just people making up their own rules as they go along, I think. Those are my feelings on it and that is what I would really like to see. I also think it is important to implement Pete Weatherby’s important amendments to the Bill. They should be implemented straight away, to be quite honest with you.
The other question I would like to ask—I have written it down, so that I do not forget—is this: are we going to have funding for inquests and for whatever families there are? I would like a little more detail on how that is going to work for families, please, if someone could help me with that. It has not been made clear. It was just said that we will now be able to have legal aid, but I am not quite sure how that is going to work, because what about in split families? By the time my ex-husband and I got to our first inquest, we were already on the road to divorce—we had split up. Would we both be able to have equal representation?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will write to you too, Jenni.
Jenni Hicks: Sorry, I am so aware that I only have 10 minutes.
The Chair
No, not at all—do not be sorry at all about it. We want to listen to what you have to say, and the Minister will be questioned in due course about some of the very issues that you and lots of other people have raised. Thank you for that outline; that is really helpful to the Committee.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Grenfell United. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself?
Edward Daffarn: My name is Edward Daffarn. I was a resident of Grenfell Tower for 16 years prior to the fire. I was involved with writing a blog called the Grenfell Action Group that tried to highlight some of the failings of our landlord—the tenant management organisation—and the lack of scrutiny by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Subsequent to the fire, I have been a committee member of Grenfell United.
Dr Mullan
Q
Edward Daffarn: Ordinarily, I find it much easier to respond to questions, but in this instance I made some notes that I would like to try to communicate to you. It could go wrong and I might have to ask you to ask me questions.
The thing with Grenfell is that it is so complicated. There are so many tributaries and so many issues. I have spent a little bit of time trying to relate what happened to us at Grenfell to the Bill. I have broken it down into three parts. The first part is an introduction explaining why the Bill is so important and why it is relevant to Grenfell. A lot of the relevance to Grenfell is also relevant to all the other public inquiries and investigations that have taken place over the last 30 years—on Hillsborough, infected blood, the Manchester Arena. There are so many similarities, but I would like to spend three or four moments on each.
The second part is about the need for culture change within organisations, and how the Bill can assist that. The third part that I wanted to address is how the Bill can assist in getting to the truth in public inquiries. Please bear with me; if things go wrong I will let you know and ask you to ask me questions.
At the heart of what I believe is that we need this Act to be implemented without delay and not to be watered down. There is a statement by Bishop James Jones: “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. That was the title of his Hillsborough report. Those words are so powerful. They sum up exactly what our position was as bereaved people and as survivors after the Grenfell Tower fire—not only after the fire but in the way we had been treated beforehand. It was this total powerlessness against forces that we had no control over. I truly believe that this Bill can act almost as a silver bullet that could change all that. I will go into some of the reasons in a minute.
I want to talk a little bit about our public inquiry. At the beginning of the inquiry, Richard Millett, who at the time was a QC, asked all of the corporate core participants to take responsibility, tell the truth and help us to get to what we needed to know. At the end of the public inquiry, he said that the “merry-go-round of buck-passing” still played and that the melody was still being heard. That was after nearly five years of a public inquiry—the truth was not being heard.
In their closing statements to the public inquiry, the core participants gave evidence for two-and-a-half days. Again, Richard Millet stated that if everything the core participants said was true, not a single person was to blame for the Grenfell Tower fire. Imagine sitting in and listening to that evidence over all those years and then, at the end of it, not a single person had taken responsibility for what had happened to us. The inquiry concluded that the core participants were guilty of “systematic dishonesty”, which led to the totally avoidable deaths of 72 people. We need to use this Bill to make sure that nothing like that can ever happen again.
Grenfell United attended an inquest family day and left understanding that the families wanted three things. They want to stop public officers from lying and covering up when things go wrong. They want a duty to proactively assist and disclose information to public inquiries. They also want parity of arms—true proportionality in representation in terms of legal aid in front of public inquiries.
How would the Bill address those changes? Obviously, there is the duty of candour, transparency and frankness, a duty to go further than not telling lies, but to proactively assist in getting to the truth in public inquiries, and to change the culture of public authorities and the public officers within those authorities to instil a code of conduct, ethics and values. That is my first part—that is how I would like us to understand why the Bill is so important.
I want to talk a little about changing the culture inside these organisations. Again, I go back to what Bishop James Jones said: we need to dismantle the patronising disposition of unaccountable power that these organisations feel entitled to exhibit. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s tenant management organisation, which was our landlord, behaved like a mini mafia. It was a non-functioning organisation that bullied and intimidated residents. Anyone who put their head above the parapet was targeted.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, whose duty it was to monitor and ensure that the TMO behaved in a proper way, failed completely in its duty to do that. As a result, as residents, as leaseholders, we were not treated with respect, and we were not treated with dignity. It is interesting to think about those words—respect and dignity—alongside the duty of candour. People need to be treated in that way.
Along with the duty of public authorities, and public officers, to tell the truth, and on candour, transparency and frankness, we also need to look very carefully at their duty to instil a code of conduct and ethics, which must be signed up to by the organisations. I am a social worker. Every year, I have to renew my commitment to our code of conduct and ethics. When I was engaging with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its officers and councillors, I was amazed at their complete lack of understanding of their role as public servants. As a social worker, if someone does not want to work with me, I have to find it inside myself to provide exactly the same service to them as to someone who does want to work with me. There can be no discrimination. At the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, if we challenged them in any way, they would come after us, as individuals.
I used to feel that as a lowly social worker I understood my role as a public servant; the leader of the council at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had no idea about those responsibilities. It is really important that, as part of this Bill, we instil a code of conduct and ethics that is meaningful, published and promoted, that is part of training, yearly appraisals and interview processes, and that is, possibly, monitored by the public advocate as well, to make sure that we try, somehow, to change the culture inside these organisations. It is not a silver bullet, because social workers have values and ethics, and things go wrong in social work. Ofsted has values and ethics and, as we heard previously, things go very wrong in Ofsted. It is not a silver bullet, but it is really important.
In terms of criminal sanctions, there must be some bite behind these duties. The other thing with criminal sanctions is that cover-ups normally happen from the top down and not from the bottom up. If junior members of staff are being bullied by senior staff members to tell lies and take part in a cover-up, a criminal sanction would allow them to refer to their legal obligations not to commit a criminal offence. It would give them a way out of that.
In the Grenfell Tower disaster, there were eight public bodies and 27 commercial organisations. We need to make sure that those commercial organisations, which were carrying out a public function, are also responsible for duty, candour and transparency, and that they also have to sign up to the code of ethics and values. We must ensure that they behave in the same way that the public authorities have to behave.
Finally, I want to turn to how the Bill can assist in public inquiries. I briefly mentioned the
“merry-go-round of buck-passing”—
which was still turning: after all the evidence was given by the core participants, there was no one to blame for the fire. As bereaved and survivors, many of us attended the public inquiry and sat through months and months of this evidence. Very naively, I think we always believed that the public inquiry was the one thing that would give us the truth and allow us to leave with an understanding of why 72 people died. I always thought, “Well, these people will come and the truth will give us what we want, and it will set them free.” There were probably 200 witnesses who appeared at the public inquiry, and I can count on the fingers of one hand how many turned up and gave evidence from their heart.
I sent some evidence to you—a seven-minute tape from the public inquiry, put together by Forensic Architecture, of public officials basically just saying, “I can’t remember. I can’t recall.” We had Robert Black, who was the chief executive of the TMO, responding to a question from Richard Millett, the QC of the public inquiry, by saying, “Pass”—like he was on “Mastermind”, like this was some sort of quiz that he could take part in or not take part in. I am sure you have seen Eric Pickles. Towards the end of the public inquiry, he advised Richard Millett that he should use his time very wisely, because Lord Pickles had other, more important, things to do with his time that day.
That is the kind of contempt and disrespect that we were treated with during the public inquiry, and I truly believe that the Bill forces public authorities to go beyond just telling the truth in public inquiries and that it forces them to provide more in-depth information. I think it would be really helpful if public inquiries and public officials were invited at an early stage to provide position statements about their organisation. That would do one of three things. It would help to speed up the public inquiry process, it would reduce the pain and suffering of families, because the process would not take as long, and it would reduce the cost on the public purse. I thought quite hard about those things, and I hope that I have managed to communicate them in a way that was not too quick and that was understandable.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Q
Edward Daffarn: There were two things that I wanted to say, and you have asked me questions about them both. At Grenfell we were amazingly lucky. From day one we were provided with legal assistance, which meant we could go out and get solicitors and QCs to help to represent us. Within about 48 hours, I was giving evidence to the Metropolitan police as part of its murder inquiry, and I was able to have a solicitor with me. But it was important that the solicitors that we had were able to totally embed themselves into the case and really commit themselves to what happened. The solicitors we had were human rights lawyers, so they had an expertise and an understanding of some of the issues that were most important to us.
Part of the reason that this is so important is that I spoke with some of the Hillsborough families quite early on after Grenfell, and I heard from them that at the beginning of their journey towards justice and in the first public inquiry they had to go out—it makes me upset to talk about it—and raise their own money to pay for their own legal advice. I remember how we were after Grenfell. It was so upsetting just trying to deal with the trauma of the bereavement and leaving our homes and our communities. The idea that we would then have to go out and fund legal aid is just so cruel and heartless. This really needs to be part of the Bill, so that that happens in a fair, transparent and equal way for people.
On the second part of the question that I would like to answer, there is a gaping hole in justice for people and victims that experience these kinds of disasters. There is a lack of a national oversight mechanism. I know it will probably not fit into this Bill, but we talked with Angela Rayner when she was shadow Secretary of State and when she was Secretary of State, and she informed us that we were pushing at an open door in terms of having a national oversight mechanism—an independent body that follows up on the recommendations made in public inquiries.
The Grenfell Tower public inquiry cost £171 million. It is the families, eight and a half years afterwards, who are having to try and hold the Government to account to implement those recommendations; and it is not just us. In every inquiry, the recommendations seem to be buried. It seems to be left to the families to chase them up, and there is no way that that can be right. At some point we need to address that. For me, if the Hillsborough law is what we have got in front of us today, a Grenfell law could be a national oversight mechanism that would ensure that no family ever has to go through what we have had to go through in the last eight and a half years to try and hold the Government to account.
The Chair
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Craig Guildford; I am the chief of West Midlands police, and I am talking to you from my office this afternoon. I am also the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for complaints and misconduct, so hopefully I will be able to assist the Committee with its questioning further.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: In terms of the broad structure around misconduct, we have the standards of professional behaviour, but when it comes to addressing the gaps, I think the criminal allegation side of things—particularly the misconduct in public office aspect—has had a number of reviews by the Law Commission over a long period, I think starting around 2015 or something like that, and various reports.
In the three main offences before the Committee this afternoon, I think we have some clear directions from lawmakers that send a very clear message to all public servants, but particularly police officers, about the consequences of their decision making. I think this complements a lot of the cultural change that has obviously occurred since the formulation of this Bill, which has been on the back of the Hillsborough disaster. If you think about how long ago that was and how far the police service has come since then, some of these elements before us really do help to embed and underline the fact that lawmakers have been very definite in their expectations of police officers. We have an internal code of conduct, which we hold officers to account for, but in terms of the more strategic gaps and the will of Parliament, this is very declaratory, in my opinion.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chief Constable Guildford: I understand. Its applicability is ubiquitous to every individual who works for the police service, and I think there are some clauses in the Bill that capture contractors as well, because, like many other public offices, we use contractors around healthcare, safer custody contracts, sessional workers and so on, so it captures those too.
I think the nub of your question really relates to what we already have internally in the police service. We have a codified code of ethics, which is applicable to everybody who works in the police service, from volunteers all the way through to chief constables—the code of conduct, which I referred to earlier, is applicable to all police officers, including special constables.
Our code of practice for ethical policing, which is a more recent development, that also includes reference to what I would describe as a duty to co-operate as a witness. So, we have already made some of those strides, but this legislation absolutely endorses that trajectory.
To answer the question about things from the top to the bottom, the decisions of the top are certainly scrutinised, and scrutinised very closely. In my professional opinion, the legislation as drafted, together with the existing measures in the code of ethics and the code of conduct, endorses a top-to-bottom approach, as well as a bottom-to-top approach, as you have alluded to.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. We have until 4.15 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if witnesses briefly introduced themselves for the record, please.
Richard Miller: I am Richard Miller. I am the head of the justice team in the policy directorate at the Law Society of England and Wales.
Chris Minnoch: I am Chris Minnoch. I am the chief executive officer of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. We are a membership group that represents practitioners across England and Wales who deliver legal aid services.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Minnoch: That one is squarely for Richard, I am afraid.
Richard Miller: In the past, families at inquests have been either unrepresented or represented by someone on legal aid or by pro bono services, perhaps against public bodies that have very little in the way of limits on the legal representation that they can provide. One of the aims of the Bill that we very much support is that there should be much more parity of arms. Now, parity does not necessarily mean absolutely equal representation on the two sides. It does not necessarily mean that, just because the public body has a King’s counsel representing them, the family must also have a King’s counsel. I do, however, think there is a question about whether, if there is a significant discrepancy, that indicates that the public body may not in fact be complying with its duty of candour.
In terms of the rights of individuals within the public bodies, if an individual has their own separate interest, they may need to be separately represented from the public body itself, but it is very important that we separate out where the public body has liability from where any individuals have liability. Generally speaking, in terms of what may follow by way of civil proceedings, it would be the body and not the individuals facing those consequences. It is the role of the public body that is most significant here, and we need to ensure that there is balance with the bereaved families.
Dr Mullan
Q
Richard Miller: The starting point would be the coroner, who will be a qualified lawyer and therefore very used to making assessments about what is necessarily and reasonably incurred by way of legal expense and legal work. They will be in as good a position as anybody to judge whether what the public body is doing is reasonable. It is a standard part of civil litigation that you have to justify your costs as necessary and reasonable, so it would not be a new requirement; it would just be a new forum within which that requirement was applying. The lawyers advising public bodies would already be well used to identifying what is necessary and reasonable in any given circumstance. Obviously, they will need to calibrate that advice in the light of this legislation, but it is not a new skill—it is a not new judgment that they will have to make. It is something that they already do.
Tessa Munt
Q
Chris Minnoch: That is not something I have necessarily prepared for, but I appreciate that it is an important point, so thank you for asking about it. For many years now, there has been a deficiency when it comes to employment cases, particularly since the removal of employment law from the scope of the legal aid scheme. As an organisation, it is important to legal aid lawyers and their clients—similarly, from the Law Society’s perspective, I am sure I would not be wrong in saying this—that people taking actions in the employment tribunal or facing proceedings as a result of whistleblowing have access to legal advice and representation. There is a certain element where people who benefit from union membership are partially protected by that or can have resources made available to them, but there is a gaping hole in the legal aid scheme at the moment around employment law and employment cases for employees. We would hope that the Government would consider filling that, because it is a very important point.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the chief coroner of England and Wales. We have until 4.35 pm for this panel. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Judge Durran: I am Her Honour Alexia Durran, chief coroner of England and Wales. Before I am asked any questions, I wonder whether I might say a little about the prism through which my answers should be viewed.
I thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence today. I begin by saying that any concerns that I may raise, in answer to questions about the operational impacts of the proposed measures before you, are in no way intended to question the principles underlying the Bill. Those principles are important and, like my predecessors in the role of chief coroner, I am committed to ensuring that the experiences endured by the Hillsborough families in the aftermath of that tragedy and, indeed, the other families you have heard from and will hear from are never repeated.
The Bill seeks to strengthen the transparency, accountability and fairness in the justice system, and those aims are ones I fully support. A coroner hearing an inquest has to answer four statutory questions: who died, when, where and how? And families often tell coroners that the outcome they want from an inquest is that no other family suffer a loss in the circumstances in which they did. Plainly, the duty of candour proposed in the Bill can only help answer the important question of how. If the Bill becomes law, I will do all I can within my role to ensure that its implementation is as effective as possible.
With that comes my responsibility to draw to the Committee’s attention the practical concerns regarding how these proposals may affect the administration of justice in the coroner service. Those concerns relate not to the aims of the Bill, but to the potential operational consequences, which, if not addressed, could inadvertently create additional challenges for the delivery of timely and effective coronial investigations and inquests.
Any points of concern I may articulate on behalf of the coroner service and my office are, plainly, so that you can carefully consider them and explore any possible mitigations. My aim, I hope, this afternoon will be to assist you in ensuring that the Bill achieves its intended purpose, without unintended impacts on the functioning of the coroner service, which plays a critical role in serving bereaved families and maintaining public confidence in the justice system. I think it is important that we do not seek, as I do not seek in any answers I may give, to undermine in any way the intentions of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: There are a number of aspects. First is the provision of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families. That representation has to be available as soon as possible to enable families to participate throughout the inquest process. If the families are not represented at early stages, the coroner has to do one of two things—either delay any inquest procedures until the family are represented, or continue without family representation, which deprives them of their voice. Coroners are concerned about whether there are sufficient lawyers available to undertake this sort of work.
It is important to recognise the other side of that equation in relation to legal representation for public authorities. The criteria currently in clause 18 suggest what gives parity of arms. It is important to recognise that public authority lawyers are very often a great help to coroners. In cases where there are voluminous amounts of material, they help the coroner to put that material into paginated bundles and deal with redactions. If that practical help is taken away, the coroner and the coroner officers will have to take up that work, which would usually be done by others. That means that coroner officers are less able to engage with bereaved families and coroners themselves will have more work to do, which will inevitably impact the number of inquests that they can hear.
I am concerned about the suggestion that there should be an overriding objective to ensure that “affected persons”, which effectively means the family, are given greater ability than others to participate in inquests—if there is to be parity of arms, that means everybody. Although a coroner will always do their best, I hope, to facilitate the effective participation of a family, everyone should have equal rights in the objective of answering the four questions.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: If you are making the coroner the judge of that, you are creating an additional burden on the coroner. It may be quite difficult for them to go about getting that information. I note that in clause 18 of the Bill as drafted there are three suggestions on how that might be considered. I would invite the Committee, in particular in relation to the importance of the issues under investigation, to look at the sort of things that might encourage the engagement of public authorities using lawyers. I might suggest complex legal principles, potential for a coroner to be invited to consider multiple conclusions, the arguable engagement of article 2, the potential for a prevention of future death report to have a national impact, and whether there are issues that might be important to the wider public interest. Those are the sorts of factors I would venture to suggest ought to be considered in assessing whether lawyers ought to be involved.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: My anxiety is that you are creating an additional level of work that takes coroners away from being in court and dealing with inquests. The covid-19 pandemic increased the backlog in coroner’s courts, as it did in other courts. There are considerable backlogs; the weeks to inquest have increased from pre-pandemic levels, and cases over 12 months—a number of areas are struggling with very high numbers. If you then inject a further level of work for coroners, you will take them away from what they need to be doing: being in court, hearing inquests and giving families closure.
Dr Mullan
Q
Judge Durran: Every coroner is an independent judicial office holder. I can give guidance, but every case and every inquest will be fact-specific. One of my responsibilities as chief coroner of England and Wales is to provide leadership with the intention of promoting consistency among coroners. A considerable piece of work in achieving that objective was the “Chief Coroner’s Guidance for Coroners on the Bench”, which is a bench book—a “how to do it”. That has received a very favourable response for helping, I hope, to frame decision-making processes. It is a publication; although its intention is to assist coroners, it is a public-facing document and available for anyone who is an interested person.
Particularly—as I have emphasised at training, which is another of my responsibilities for coroners—bereaved families who are not represented in inquests should have access to that publication, because they can use that document to hold coroners to account in saying, “You are not following the Chief Coroner’s guidance, designed to promote consistency.” I am sad and disappointed that people may not have had a positive experience from an inquest, but we are, I believe, making considerable progress in promoting greater consistency.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Judge Durran: There is certainly an impression that inquests are becoming more adversarial because lawyers seek to use them as some early form of litigation, with an eye to any consequential litigation down the line. My predecessor and I have done a lot to convey the message that an inquest is inquisitorial—it should not be adversarial. It is a summary hearing, not a surrogate public inquiry. Increasingly, I tell coroners about the existence of the advocate’s toolkits, which have been designed specifically with inquests in process. I have encouraged coroners that if lawyers are seeking to turn an inquest into a public inquiry, they should pause, look at the advocate’s toolkits, remind the lawyers to look at those and remind them of the nature of the proceedings, because it is not the correct forum to make those sort of arguments.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the independent public advocate. We have until 4.55 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witness could briefly introduce herself for the record.
Cindy Butts: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Cindy Butts, and I am the independent public advocate.
Dr Mullan
Q
I have a sense that the role of the IPA might be a way of addressing the gap between the need to have a public inquiry—with or without a duty of candour—and the need to get people answers more quickly. In your role as the independent public advocate, do you feel that you should have more powers, for example to compel the publication of records and information that might help families to get answers in a shorter timescale, as was suggested today?
Cindy Butts: At the moment, I have gateway powers. Basically, that means that I only have access to information that families themselves should have access to. Although I have been in post for only two months, that provision has not quite yet been tested as to whether I need additional powers. But I absolutely recognise and appreciate the concerns of families in particular that where truth is withheld—in the case of Hillsborough, that was for many decades—that prevents them from accessing the truth. It has not been tested yet, and there might be a case for additional powers to allow me to have access to that information.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: Fundamentally, it is the fact that public officials will be required to act with candour not only in their daily work, but in respect of inquests, public inquiries and any other review processes that might ensue. That is really important, and it can certainly go a long way to recognising the gap, which has existed for far too long, whereby organisations are able to protect their own interests and hide the truth. The Bill can go a long way to filling that gap.
Having said that, although I fundamentally welcome the Bill, it has a number of gaps. I have written to the Committee with my evidence. Some of it relates directly to the Bill, and admittedly other elements sit slightly outside it, but I cheekily wanted to put those issues forward, because I think they are fundamental in terms of truth finding.
In terms of the gaps, the first thing is that the independent public advocate is not mentioned at all in the Bill. That is not a technical omission, but a structural flaw. When public bodies face major incidents—that is obviously the prism through which I am looking at this—they look to the statute that governs candour, and if the IPA is not referenced in that, they will assume that the IPA has no standing in the candour framework. They will not know what co-operation is expected or required of them, and they will treat the duty of candour as something separate from my statutory role. My office, which was created because candour failed, cannot be absent from legislation that is designed to make candour succeed. That is why a carefully drafted provision ought to be in the Bill.
The other area I wish to highlight is the lack of coherence in moral language. What we know—this is a very insidious problem—is that in major incidents, different parts of the state speak in different moral registers. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which brought my role into being, the Hillsborough charter and now this Bill all speak in very different moral language. The Bill is very much in legal terms, the Hillsborough charter is very much in moral terms and the Victims and Prisoners Act is very operational.
I do not think that this is a matter of semantics. It is absolutely fundamental that we have coherence among all the different elements because we know that, otherwise, when organisations are put under pressure, they revert to what is easiest to do. Not having that coherence allows them the ability to navigate to their own advantage.
Another element that requires careful consideration relates to the monitoring of the duty of candour. The Prime Minister announced only a few weeks ago that the Ethics and Integrity Commission would be tasked with setting the framework and monitoring organisations’ adherence to the duty of candour. I think that is right. Having said that, in respect of major incidents, I do not think the Ethics and Integrity Commission is the right organisation to monitor compliance; that should sit with the Independent Public Advocate—with my role—ensuring that organisations are adhering to the duty of candour. The Ethics and Integrity Commission would not be on the ground. It would not have access to, or a relationship with, victims. That gap ought to be filled.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: They are my key points, but I think there is one more that I want to bring to your attention. As the Bill is currently drafted, victims and bereaved families have no formal role in shaping guidance, oversight or the implementation of the duty of candour. Given that the Bill is derived from the experiences of the Hillsborough families and so many others who have faced tragedy, those ought to be hardwired into the Act itself so that reform is something that is never done to them, but always with them. There should be a way in which families have a formal role, working alongside the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to ensure that the Bill is not procedural and that it works in practice. That is fundamentally missing, and it should be corrected.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: No, I just saw it when it was published, and that is because I have been in role for only two months.
Dr Mullan
Q
Cindy Butts: Yes, I would want to see some of the language that is reflected in both the Hillsborough charter and the Victims and Prisoners Act—the section that deals with the Independent Public Advocate, where it speaks to the moral importance of accountability and truth telling—rather than what is there now, which is much more legalistic and technical. I do not think that that necessarily requires an amendment; it requires careful redrafting, which can be done quite easily. I am happy to spell that out and flesh it out in written evidence, if that would be helpful.
Tessa Munt
Q
You referred to the families and an awful lot of individuals who considered that they were really looking forward to you being part of their solutions. Might I ask you to consider something? You were talking about language. I think that what will happen is that every different organisation will create its own code of ethics and own interpretation of the duty of candour. Is there perhaps a place for the Government, or for you and the Government, to work together to make a single version?
I suspect that the public, out there in the real world, will interpret the code of ethics and the duty of candour in a particular way, and will use ordinary language. They will know when it is right and what it is saying, but we might be in terrible danger of local authorities—some of them doing one thing; some of them doing another—and different people interpreting the rules in a particular way.
I recognise the difficulties with Nolan. They have been with us for 30 years, but clearly the Nolan principles have not worked. Is there a possibility of a single framework within which everyone understands what everyone is up to? I say that particularly because in earlier evidence from the chief constable, when he was questioned about various aspects, he thought that it was a brilliant question for other authorities, but not for his.
Cindy Butts: Thank you for that interesting question. The duty will cover hundreds—thousands, probably—of bodies, all with very different roles and remits, so having one coherent framework might be difficult, because each and every one of them needs something that is right for them and that fits the context of the way in which they work and their objectives. That said, there is value in thinking about some overarching principles that certainly ought to apply to how each organisation develops its bespoke framework. First and foremost, however, it must fit in with an overarching set of principles.
That question also points to the issue I raised before, which is about ensuring that victims and survivors are involved in the implementation. I think that they can play a crucial role in ensuring that organisations have a framework that is fit for purpose and that is informed by their lived experience. That would be how I look at it.
Dr Mullan
Q
The Chair
Before we do, there are three witnesses and a number of Members want to ask questions, so Members should bear in mind that we will not necessarily have time for all those questions if they ask the same questions of all three witnesses.
Dr Chopra: I will try to be brief. I want to say at the outset that I recognise the injustices experienced by the victims and survivors of the events that have taken place and led us to this point in considering this Bill. That is on my mind as I am talking.
I have had experience of operating under a duty of candour both as a clinician in the NHS and as part of an assurance body. I recognise what you are saying—that it has not been as successful as we would want it to be—but I do think it has helped. Clear expectations have been created as to what we expect within health and social care services around the duty of candour, and how we expect professionals and organisations to discharge that duty.
It is important to point out that the duty alone is not enough. The sense of the culture within an organisation upstream has a profound impact on how the duties are applied when a notifiable safety incident actually occurs. It is also important to recognise, downstream, after incidents have occurred, how we can take learning from those incidents and ensure that it is disseminated. There are upstream aspects as well as the incidents that take place.
It is also important to point out that, as an assurance organisation, we in the CQC see when the regulation 20 duty of candour is not working. We have taken action over the last 10 years, I think in 361 instances, when we have found that the duties have not been discharged properly. We have a suite of powers, ranging from civil actions to criminal prosecutions, and there have been times when we have taken forward criminal prosecutions when we have found that the duty of candour has not been met.
Some of the practical issues we find include the timeliness of when the duties are discharged. We sometimes find organisations considering whether the duty actually applies and whether the incident qualifies as a notifiable safety incident. Those are some of the issues we find when we look at how the duty is working in the NHS.
Helen Vernon: I agree. I think the aims of the Bill, as when the NHS duty of candour was introduced, are a really important step in increasing transparency and accountability, and thereby improving trust. Our main role is handling compensation claims against the NHS in England. We know from our research that where you do not get transparency, and where you do not get a meaningful apology and engagement when things go wrong, that can drive people to other processes—in our case, bringing a compensation claim to get information.
In reality, we recognise that the implementation has been inconsistent. There are some organisations that do it well and have an open culture, and clearly there are some that could do better. I reiterate what Dr Chopra said about culture: it is key to have a sustained focus on culture and leadership. Consistency in understanding is important, including things like triggers and how you apply the duty in practice, so that it becomes more than a tick-box exercise and becomes meaningful. Lastly, there is training, which we have partly taken a role in delivering to ensure that clinicians in particular have the skills required to deliver the duty effectively.
Professor Fowler: I think we are all very supportive of the notion of being transparent. We have had a duty of candour on organisations, and applied through individuals, for 10 years, but I think we all accept that it has been inconsistently applied. There are very good examples of where it has been applied, and there are very poor examples.
From the individual duty of candour point of view, it is worth pointing out that we have seen a significant rise in the number of people coming forward and reporting incidents—in other circumstances, they are being very transparent, and we are seeing 3 million of those a year. From the point of view of organisational transparency, we already see very good examples of people stepping forward and working with a number of different inquiries. Since 2021, NHS England alone has looked at 600,000 different documents, disclosed 7,000 of them to inquiries and put forward 5,500 pages of witness statements. There is a very significant amount of work there.
The Department of Health and Social Care has rightly chosen to review the individual duty of candour and look at what has worked well and what has not. We are starting to see some of the information from that review, but there will be a publication on that next year. I think it will confirm that, at the moment, it is inconsistent to some extent, and it will confirm the importance of training and support for organisations.
Dr Mullan
Q
Dr Chopra: When we approach looking at the duty of candour in regulation 20, we approach it both at the registration phase, when we are registering providers, and at the inspection and assessment stages, which then determines whether we take any enforcement action.
We have an assessment framework that sets out particular questions that we look at when we assess how an organisation is approaching its duty of candour. Within that, there will be policies and procedures that people need to follow. How do they deal with whistleblowers? How do they deal with people who raise concerns? To go back to Helen’s point, how are they ensuring that training is taking place for frontline clinicians, so that they have a mechanism to raise concerns or incidents that might trigger the statutory duty of candour? That is how we look at the overarching policies, processes and procedures that will satisfy us that an organisation is ready to be registered, and that we can look at them when we are going out on inspections. That is how we look at those issues.
Tessa Munt
Q
I have a couple of questions. First, what do you feel you can do to stop the suppression of witnesses? Will the Bill cover that? We know there are legal duties attached to this, but something has to change to stop whistleblowers suffering detriment. I do not know whether you feel the Bill is going to do it, because whatever has been in place for the last 10 years has not done it.
Secondly, the NHS has shown a willingness to accept people who have been recycled from roles in other services, departments and organisations when they might not have been deemed to have succeeded in those roles; they suddenly become chairs of trusts or take other roles in the organisation. There is something not quite right going on, in my opinion—it is my opinion.
Helen Vernon: I will talk to something that we are doing to help with that, at least in relation to the NHS duty of candour. One of the things that we have heard is a barrier to openness is the fear of a subsequent claim. As a public body, we can do something about that, because we can issue guidance to the NHS that debunks it, in essence, by saying, “It’s incredibly important that you put the duty of candour first, that you are open and honest, that you share information when it is available, and that you do the right thing for the patient, regardless of the possibility of subsequent litigation.”
That is one thing that we have been doing. It is a message that we have found it quite difficult to permeate in its totality, bearing in mind that we have clinicians coming up all the time through training, for example. We need to get to people when they are taking on a new role and we need to cover the whole of the NHS, which is evidently huge, but it is certainly something we make a huge effort on, to make sure that we remove barriers where we hear of them.
Professor Fowler: From the NHSE point of view, I would argue that progress has been made but it is imperfect. I accept that point, but I think we have seen evidence of greater levels of transparency, as I said.
Obviously, the Bill will need to interact with existing provisions, such as professional regulatory standards. We have a fit and proper person test that we apply— Arun might want to come on to that, because some of it is done through the CQC. We now have a 10-year plan that commits to radical transparency as part of its aims. Underlying that, in order to drive up quality, there is a commitment to a quality strategy, which we are working on and will look again at assurance mechanisms and how we tidy them up and simplify them to some extent, but also how we improve them.
In making these changes we have to be very cautious to understand, first, why people do not step forward if they do not step forward, and secondly, that we have obligations, for example, to protect patient confidentiality in any information we release, protect our staff, and look at proportionality. I mentioned the volume of papers we have looked at; it is important to understand that there are resource implications for clinicians’ time in responding to some of this. There is a lot of complexity to some of the things we need to look at in making sure there is not a chilling effect and that people are willing to step forward and do not see a potential impediment.
Dr Chopra: Aidan has already mentioned the fit and proper person test, but I want to make a couple of additional points. It is so difficult that we have to legislate for candour, but some of this is about culture in organisations, and there is a way of tapping into looking at an organisation’s culture. We have questions in NHS staff surveys about how confident staff feel about raising concerns, and whether those concerns will be responded to. I find that data is quite helpful to understand a sense of the culture in the organisation.
The other point I was going to mention was about inequalities, demographics and protected characteristics. A great proportion—up to 40%—of the medical workforce in the NHS come from minoritised ethnic backgrounds, and they are often the people who struggle the most to have their concerns raised. They are the ones who are scared of retribution for raising concerns. Tackling that will be a significant factor in making sure that the duty of candour, as it is currently is meant to work, is as successful as we would like it to be.
In terms of how we can measure some of that, my team was able to run about 100 of our recent reports using a large language model in AI to look at duty of candour. When it comes to comparing those providers that were rated “Outstanding” or “Good” with those that were rated “Requires improvement”, an open, transparent culture consistently came up as a likely factor. That is evidence that such a culture is more likely to lead to an organisation that we describe as discharging its duty of candour well. These factors are really important.
On the interplay point that Aidan mentioned, we will have the statutory duty of candour, the professional duty of candour, the provisions of the Bill and the NHS manager’s duty of candour. We have got to make sure that these four pieces of legislation work together.
Seamus Logan
Q
Dr Chopra: Going back to what I was saying about our role as a regulator, I have focused on where we have taken enforcement powers where we have seen things that have not worked, but I think we could also do the opposite. As a regulator, we could be talking about those areas that we see as outstanding, and platforming what they have done with their policies, processes and procedures that have made them outstanding. Being a regulator that champions innovation and outstanding organisations is something that the CQC could contribute. That might be one way.
I have worked in other jurisdictions. When I think about how duty of candour works in Scotland, one of the differences is that every organisation in Scotland has to do an annual duty of candour statement. Each organisation is required to set out at the end of the year how many instances of duty of candour have been picked up, the very top headlines of what the issues were, and what they are doing about it. I thought that was a good provision that I saw operating up north. It is not perfect, but it shows how the duty is working in practice. I was working in an assurance body up there, and it allowed me to look across the country to see what was happening and whether there were areas where under-reporting may be taking place. It allowed better monitoring at national level.
Helen Vernon: In addition to what we do in relation to compensation, we have a role in the effective management of concerns about practitioner performance. Recognising some of the things that you mentioned, we did some work on some guidance called “Being fair”, which was about setting out some principles on a just and learning culture and what that looks like. Translating that into practice has meant creating templates and some simple principles that can be shared across different organisations to make it easy for people to speak up safely. That was co-produced with the input of regulators and clinicians who have been through some difficult processes, but it is one of the ways in which we can bring practical guidance to sometimes difficult concepts.
Dr Mullan
Q
Dr Chopra: We get notified of incidents. To be very frank, we are a responsive organisation when incidents occur; when we are made aware of PFD reports, we look at them. Because of the way that we look at things, as I said, we are responsive rather than taking a proactive view, but yes, that is right. One thing that might be helpful is to bring those recommendations to a national body. We are pinning a lot on the National Quality Board at the moment, but it would be helpful to bring recommendations to a central place that would allow their dissemination so that they land not just in the organisation where the incident occurred but across the piece.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Fowler: We certainly look at all the reports that are sent to us in a themed way, and look at the themes from that. In fact, I met the chief coroner this week, and we have regular discussions. You will know we have the medical examiner system now, and there is more we can do tie in the different processes and make sure that we learn from them. We look at what organisations report in quality accounts. We have prevention of future deaths reports and the “Learn from patient safety events” database, in which about 0.5% of the 3 million incidents are related to death. We bring the learning from those things together in a themed way with other data to ask, “What can we learn from all this together?” For example, medical examiners may require people to do a structured judgment review. We make sure that if that is requested, it is carried out, the learning is taken from it, actions are followed up and the cycle is completed, if you like.
Ian Byrne
Q
Dr Chopra: Can you say a little more?
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.
Dr Mullan
Q
Ron Warmington: Thank you for the question. I think it would have made a difference. I have been involved in companies that are steeped in ethical behaviour and have codes of conduct and sign-offs each year to confirm that people understand the letter as well as the spirit of the rules. What we encountered was what I have described in the past as weasel wording: straight questions altered to suit the questions that the recipient would have preferred to have asked of them, and answers that were seemingly compelling but actually not even, in some cases, telling the truth, let alone the whole truth. It should not have been, but it became a battle—a sort of warfare. It was completely unexpected by me that that behaviour would occur. I have dealt with out-and-out crooks before, but when it comes to that behaviour from the top brass and then the behaviour, as a contagion, going right through the company, I had not really encountered that before. That needs wholesale ethical change, and I am not sure an Act of Parliament can enforce that, but it will be a good thing to try.
Dr Mullan
Q
Ron Warmington: I do not deal with most organisations, but the Post Office was exceptionally bad in its behaviour. I think it originally intended to work with my company to seek the truth; there were individuals who clearly wanted to do that, but preservation of the brand and short-termism—there was the misconception that pretending that the organisation never makes any mistakes at all was going to be good for the corporation in the long term. It is complete nonsense, but that was the philosophy that had spread throughout the organisation.
I am 76 years old; I was raised in an era when my word was my bond and you did not need to have everything in writing. Corporate behaviour—unless I am misguided —was much better then. I hate the way the corporate world has gone, so I guess I was not that surprised at what we found in the Post Office.
Dr Mullan
Q
Ron Warmington: I would hope so. Every board—I have been on a lot of them—is, every now and then, trying to deal with something that has been screwed up badly, and a decision has to be made: “What are we going to do about it? Are we going to front it out, or are we going to try to cover it up?” It does not take much to shift that decision in the right direction. This measure might be enough to do that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Flora Page: Let me answer that partly with reference to your earlier question; I have also been involved in the Post Office case, and it seems to me that there are some difficulties about whether the Bill would have applied, because it is not clear that the people to whom one would wish the duty of candour to attach would necessarily be public officials. I think there are also difficulties about whether Ron’s investigation would have qualified as an inquiry or investigation—so there are a number of difficulties.
That takes me back to whistleblowers and your second question. The whistleblower provisions that we have in law at the moment are wholly inadequate, and the reason is that they put the onus on the whistleblower to enforce their rights as if they were employment rights, through the Employment Tribunal. That is entirely wrong-headed: when you speak up, it is not an employment issue; it is a public interest issue. When you are a whistleblower and it falls to you to protest any detriment that you might be suffering, it is treated as if it were a personal grievance matter—as it often is in the Employment Tribunal—rather than being taken out of the whistleblower’s hands and put into the hands of somebody who is there to look out for the public interest.
I can speak from very direct personal experience representing whistleblowers in the Employment Tribunal. It is an incredibly hostile environment for them. If they go all the way to a hearing, they are having to speak up again, often the people they have spoken up about are right behind them, and they have no protection. It is an unreasonable demand for people to have to put their families and their future employment in jeopardy and to be that brave. Some of the people whom I have acted for have been that brave, but that story is not a good story to tell; people do not want to be in that position. You cannot go out and say, “This is super. Let’s celebrate being a whistleblower,” because nobody wants to have to put themselves in that position—at their own expense, if they have sought legal representation.
What we need is a much nimbler inquiry or person who is responsible for stepping in if the employer is not dealing with the whistleblower properly, so that it is taken out of the whistleblower’s hands and becomes a public interest matter. At WhistleblowersUK, there is a lot of talk about an office for the whistleblower, because that would be something that took it out of the whistleblower’s hands and took it out of the employment context.
Dr Mullan
Q
Flora Page: An office that was used to these problems would quite easily and quickly winnow out the people who were using it as a front. Often it is as simple as the chronology: if a whistleblower has been trundling along just fine in their job, and then they speak up and suffer detriment, that often means they are a genuine whistleblower. If it turns out that there has been all sorts of back and forth about personal grievance issues first, and then they start blowing the whistle, that is a different matter. Often it is as simple as that. People who are used to these matters—at WhistleblowersUK, there is a great deal of triaging of the inquiries that come in—can quite quickly tell who is a genuine whistleblower.
Dr Mullan
Q
Flora Page: You could easily. I suppose one would seek to front-load the issues. I am not against the provisions of the Bill at all, but what the Bill deals with is after the event: some terrible thing has happened, a large inquiry has been set up and we are having to unpick the fact that people have not told the truth in real time. With something that protected and supported whistleblowers up front, one would hope to be able to bring the problem forward, and have much nimbler and cheaper investigations arising out of whistleblower complaints.
If there were disgruntled people moaning and saying their concerns had not been looked into, let them trundle along and see whether, 10 years down the line, it turns into a big public inquiry; nine times out of 10—or probably 99 times out of 100—it is not going to. My view is that we spend too much money on these public inquiries. We need to find a way to front-load the problem and support people when they first start speaking up, so they feel able to put those problems, first, into the employer domain and then, if necessary, into the public domain.
Tessa Munt
Q
Ron Warmington: Likewise.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Mayor of Liverpool City Region combined authority and the Mayor of Greater Manchester combined authority. We have until 6.30 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could briefly introduce themselves.
Andy Burnham: Good evening, I am Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Between 2001 and 2017, I was the MP for Leigh. During that time I was Culture Secretary on the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough. I introduce the initial Hillsborough law to Parliament as a ten-minute rule Bill.
Steve Rotheram: My name is Steve Rotherham. I was a Member of Parliament in the dark days between 2010 and 2017.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: It substantially meets the provisions of the 2017 Bill. It is 80% to 90% there. Previous to its introduction to Parliament, Mayor Rotherham and I worked closely with the Government and got it to a point where we felt it was worthy of the name “Hillsborough law”—although there were still further issues to be picked up by amendments, which the Government agreed to as part of the negotiation process.
One of those issues was the extent to which the duty of candour applies. I can tell the Committee more about my experience in convening inquiries at a Greater Manchester level, which may be relevant to the discussions. I also wish to see the parity of legal funding for bereaved families stated more clearly as a principle in this Bill, with a firm guarantee of what that means for families rather than a fairly loose entitlement as it is at the moment. We can go into the details, should you wish, but the Bill is substantially there.
With legislation of this kind, it does not help anybody if loopholes, grey areas or high hurdles are created in terms of the tests for duties to apply. It is going to be helpful for everybody if the Committee and Parliament can make it absolutely plain what this Bill is intended to cover and what it is not. That will empower the public, which is, at the end of the day, what this Bill is about. There is still some work to do in certain areas to remove some of those loopholes and grey areas. I think that I speak for Steve as well in saying that we have been advised throughout by the lawyers of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. We strongly support the evidence that they have put to you as a Committee today.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: We certainly support all those amendments. I do not need to go through them—you know what they are—but I would like to speak about two of them. The first is a Government amendment, I think, which may have come forward to the Committee already, on inquiries and the inquiries that are to be covered by the Bill. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I have convened two major inquiries. The first was the Kerslake inquiry into what happened at the Manchester Arena attack. The second was a major review into child sexual exploitation, or grooming, in Greater Manchester.
I pushed for the Government to introduce that further amendment, because my experience with those reviews was, first, that Greater Manchester police was not entirely accurate in the account that it gave to the Kerslake report, which remains of deep concern to me, because clearly a report of that nature is not done under oath. We initiated it because we felt it to be right that, immediately after the attack—we could not wait for the public inquiry—we should gather learnings for our police force and fire service. It is barely believable that an inaccurate version of events was provided to Kerslake by Greater Manchester police.
Secondly on grooming, it was my experience that, through various reports into the issue in Manchester, Rochdale and Oldham, the inquiry team found repeatedly that public servants refused to give evidence to them. There was no duty to assist in place, therefore public servants could do that without any consequence. On those issues, I hope you can understand why I pressed very hard for an amendment to ensure that the Bill covers inquiries ordered by combined authorities and local authorities.
I believe the Government have created a serious harm test for those inquiries. We are not necessarily against that, but we hope the Committee will assist us in getting a clear definition of what that actually means. In the case of grooming, I did not necessarily have all the evidence at the time that serious harm had taken place; it was the risk that serious harm had taken place that led me to want to convene that inquiry. There is an important distinction there; I do not think a serious harm test should rule out the grooming example.
Equally, it has been put to us that inquiries commissioned by local authorities on matters relating to fraud—I think the Edinburgh tram one is an example here—might cause serious harm to the reputation of a local authority. Should they be out of scope? We would say not. We could accept a serious harm test as long as it is reasonably widely drafted to cover all the examples that I have given.
I think I have a position that may go a little further than the Hillsborough Law Now campaign on parity. I personally believe very strongly that this needs to be a firm principle in the Bill. Margaret Aspinall gave evidence to Parliament shortly after the second inquest and she recounted the experience from the first Hillsborough inquest of having to scratch around to fund her own legal costs and having to cash the cheque from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of her son James to pay for her legal fees. I brought forward the original Bill with that experience absolutely seared into my mind—how any bereaved parent should have to do that and go into a courtroom raw with grief, up against the highest KCs in the land who are often employed by public bodies lawyered up to the max. To me, it is a really important principle that there is parity in those courtrooms.
Having a level playing field is a big guarantee of getting the truth, and I personally would like to see an amendment to the Bill that says that there must be a comparable level between the hourly rate of the KCs acting for the state and the KCs acting for bereaved families. To me, that is what that principle of parity actually means. I appreciate the strides that have been made here in terms of access to legal aid and access to legal representation—they are huge strides—but let us go further: the Bill should do 100% of a job, not 80% or 90%.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: There was a concern that, at a local level, inquiries could be launched for fairly frivolous or political reasons. None of us wants a sort of industry in local inquiries using the provisions of the Bill. I understand that concern, and I could accept a serious harm test—as I said to the Minister last week—but it should not rule out major wrongdoing, particularly in relation to fraud. I accept that there could be a hurdle, but there is work to be done by the Committee to establish the precise nature of that hurdle. Obviously, you do not want to see the wasteful use of public funds and the over-commissioning of inquiries—I accept that—but I still think that there needs to be a definition of serious harm.
There was initially a concern about public funds and the affordability of the commitment to parity. Again, I understand that, but Hillsborough Law Now and we would argue that the Bill could lead to lower public spending. Its provisions will help us to get to the truth more quickly and therefore reduce the length of public inquiries. The Bill also creates an incentive for the state to spend less on its own legal representation if there is a duty of parity that bites hard. If there is a rough equivalence in terms of the hourly rate, the state suddenly does not have an incentive to hire the best paid KCs in the land. At the moment, as I understand it, the state is completely free to do that. The Bill needs to create a mechanism that limits state expenditure. The savings from that will then help to pay for representation at a balanced level on the other side. I really wish to see the strongest possible principle of parity of arms in the final Bill.
The Chair
We have three other Members who want to ask questions and less than 15 minutes left.
Dr Mullan
Q
Andy Burnham: There is no question about it, those inquiries need to have trust at a local level. I will be open in saying that the failure of some people to co-operate with the inquiries that I initiated to some degree undermines the inquiry reports. I do not think it invalidates them, by any means, because they were hard-hitting reports, but it is right to deal with these things as soon as possible. The Hillsborough story is about not letting things be unresolved for years and not leaving people fighting for years. Deal with them as up front as you can, and as strongly as you can, at the first time of asking. Obviously, if that principle applies to local inquiries and inquiries commissioned by combined authorities, we are more likely to get to the truth more quickly.
Tessa Munt
Q
Andy Burnham: If I can quickly pick up your point, Tessa, I absolutely agree that there should be full transparency on legal expenditure by public bodies, including police bodies and NHS trusts. I think that the lack of a requirement has led to very unfair situations when the state has lawyered up, as I said before. To me, the Bill should create an entirely new regime that does not allow bereaved families to face the full might of the state, when they have barely any legal representation.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence—our final panel today—from Daniel De Simone. We have until 6.50 pm for this panel. Please could the witness briefly introduce himself, for the record?
Daniel De Simone: My name is Daniel De Simone and I am the investigations correspondent for BBC News. I am here in a personal capacity as a journalist, rather than speaking on behalf of the BBC corporately. I am the journalist involved in the MI5 case, as you have heard about today, in which they gave false evidence to three courts about conversations with me.
Dr Mullan
Q
It is important for us to have a context and understanding of your views more generally on how we scrutinise our security services. I read with interest your account of what had happened with the legal challenge that the Government put forward to your report in relation to Officer X. It seemed to me that you were describing the fact that there were separate advocates to consider legal evidence, as opposed to your own advocates—that there was evidence you were never going to be allowed to hear—and that you were saying that that in itself was not right. Do you accept that there are times that there should be secret and distinct processes to maintain secrecy, even in the cases of public interest journalism?
Daniel De Simone: I certainly do. I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties.
That evidence is often heard in secret—so, away from the people most affected. That places a special responsibility on MI5—which they accept; their current director general has spoken about this—because there is a special responsibility on secret organisations to be candid and honest. That is why the duty of candour is particularly important for MI5.
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: There has been evidence earlier today from other witnesses. MI5, as things stand—as I understand it—would not be subject to the same level of responsibilities as other organisations. They would be like a corporate responsibility organisation, not with full command responsibility for the director general. The cases we have heard about—my case, which is still ongoing, and the Manchester Arena—show that there have been very recent examples where there has been a significant failure of a duty of candour. That raises a question about whether MI5 can be relied on to give honest and accurate evidence.
With the Manchester Arena example, they gave a false picture, an inaccurate picture, about the key intelligence that was received before the bombing. In my case, they gave false evidence to three different courts. When that was accepted by them—with some reluctance, I must add—they then said they were going to investigate it and also appointed an external investigator.
Those reports were inadequate. That is not my view but that of the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and other senior judges, and the Prime Minister has ordered a new investigation. Even after they accepted it, they still then came to the High Court and gave an inaccurate picture. They gave evidence to the court that was open, and then when they were forced to hand over the closed material, it did not reflect the reality, and the judges said that to them. That is why I think the duty of candour really does apply very importantly to MI5. If it has an exemption and is not treated the same as other organisations, that is a bit of an issue. We have very recent, current examples of where they are not being candid with courts.
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: I am not a legal expert, but from what I understand there is not a full command responsibility on, for example, the director general of MI5, as things stand. There is not the same level of responsibility on the individual officers as there is on, for example, the police or Government Departments. There is a question about why that is, given how important MI5 often is in very significant cases. MI5 often gives evidence corporately to courts and inquiries, and that has been shown, in our case, to be very unsatisfactory. The High Court has issued new guidance on the way MI5 should give corporate evidence, so that it has to be much clearer about where the information comes from and who is responsible for it.
We have spoken a lot about inquests today. In inquests, MI5 always tends to give evidence corporately, via an anonymous corporate witness. The individual officers who make the decisions are not called. With the Manchester Arena case, we saw how important that was, because the corporate witness came along and gave one account in public, and when the arena inquiry chairman made the individual officers come along in a closed session—that, of course, would not be available in an inquest, but this was a public inquiry—he got a totally different account. That is why there is a real importance on individual officers having accountability and corporate witnesses having accountability, because they are corporate witnesses representing the organisation. To be blunt, the director general of MI5 is not really the corporate witness; it is normally someone else who is quite senior, but not the director general.
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: When we have got into a process like the Manchester Arena case, there is a way that that can be dealt with. There is a coroner and a chairman of the public inquiry, and they can deal with that. The point they are talking about there appears to be more about whistleblowing, and if someone feels something is wrong and they need to raise it—
Dr Mullan
Q
Daniel De Simone: There are ways of dealing with that. You could say the same with a police investigation. The police officer might not have the full picture. The point is about whether there is going to be duty of candour responsibility on people generally within the organisation. Is there going to be a command responsibility generally on the director general? I think that is a separate point, because there is a way of dealing with that.
Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters.
I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree.
It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world.
The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression.
The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate.
There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers.
Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to
“focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”.
We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing?
More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue?
We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.
Dr Arthur
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s summing up; he is doing a great job. Those numbers invite some further investigation. Thirty per day does sound like quite a lot of arrests, but in how many cases was the communication the sole reason for the arrest? Was it just a matter of there being many other factors combined, and that was just one point in the arrest schedule?
Dr Mullan
That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser.
We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.
Emily Darlington
Does the shadow Minister recognise that when his Government were letting out rapists and violent criminals, they put in place no protections whatsoever, whereas this Government have brought in protection orders and domestic violence orders to ensure that victims are protected in these cases? Does he also recognise that the prison crisis was caused under his Government?
Dr Mullan
It may come from a man, but it is just an explanation. The early release schemes that we used, and that the Minister was previously using, excluded all sexual offences. We excluded sexual offences, and the early release schemes that continued excluded sexual offences. The Sentencing Bill makes no exclusion for sexual offences—none. We would not let out rapists earlier, and the Labour Government initially would not let out rapists, but they are now going to do so. We would not let out people who raped children, and initially the Labour Government would not let out people who raped children, but they are now passing a Bill that will let out people who raped children.
Some people say that the scheme addresses a short-term crisis, but, again, there are existing schemes that could be used for short-term prison capacity issues, such as the ones that I have talked about, which exclude sexual offences. We agree that those should be excluded. Instead of carrying on using those schemes, this Government are legislating to let rapists, child rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier on a permanent basis. Ninety per cent of people who go to prison for child grooming will be serving a third of their sentence. If that is something that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) thinks is defendable, I encourage her to go away and read the detail.
As I said, the Sentencing Bill will let out thousands of violent and sexual offenders, even if Government Members pretend that that is not what is going to happen. I would also point out that some Labour MPs understand that and would not vote for it. They understand what their Government are persuading them to vote for. They really should not vote for it. I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at the sentencing framework to ensure it better reflects the concerns that colleagues have laid out today. Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity.
We are clear that we can restore democratic accountability to sentencing only through the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the restoration of its activities to the Lord Chancellor’s office. That is the sort of wholesale reform that is needed. We introduced an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to enable that, but Labour voted it down, proposing instead a halfway house that will not achieve anything like the radical change we need.
The right choices are there and a better way forward is available. It is true that this is a new area for our law and for society; perhaps we were always going to take time to get this right. I welcome the campaigners and individuals affected driving politicians of all parties to do so. We have had some clear proposals for reform, which are a start, but in the meantime it will sadly take more cases, more public concern and more demands for change for the Government to get this right.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology and social media have become more complex and difficult, but that does not mean we should shy away from attempting to ensure the principles that we hold so dear, including democracy. I will deal with that important point later in my speech.
This Government are committed to ensuring that penalties for these types of offences are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression. Sentencing is and must remain a matter for the independent judiciary. We all—particularly Government Ministers—have a responsibility to take extreme care when discussing individual cases. I will not be commenting on any, although we all take our own personal views on cases that capture the public imagination. But a sentence in the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as those imposed by courts of law. Each case is different, and the full circumstances are often not reported widely. Media stories of cases rarely convey all the information that the court had before it when deciding on its sentence.
Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to online speech, the independent judiciary is responsible for determining appropriate sentences, based on the facts of each cases and the relevant sentencing guidelines. An independent judiciary is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic society. It ensures that justice is administered fairly, impartially and critically, without political interference.
The independence of our judiciary from political influence is a vital part of our constitution, and I for one am determined to protect that in my role. The proposals by the Opposition to simply scrap the Sentencing Council amount to constitutional vandalism and have been described by previous Conservative Attorneys General as completely absurd.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that our proposals, which were not just to abolish the Sentencing Council but to create a number of bodies that advise the Department, are essentially exactly the same proposal that existed before the Sentencing Council was introduced by the Labour Government. Did he think there was constitutional vandalism prior to Labour’s reforms?
Jake Richards
The shadow Minister is completely incorrect. The Conservative party’s current proposals are not what was in place before the Sentencing Council was established. They propose to bring the sentencing of every type of criminal case into the Executive. That is a completely new, innovative and wholly dangerous proposal that has been criticised by Conservatives themselves. I remember when Conservatives used to stand up for our constitution and the separation of powers, rather than simply following the populist flame.
The sentencing framework is important, because it provides courts with a range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders in addition to imprisonment, including through discharges, fines, community sentences and suspended sentences. The law also makes it clear that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and where no other sentence would be appropriate.
When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. They have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, differences in sentencing outcomes will be the result of a number of factors, including whether the offender has previous convictions or whether an early guilty plea was entered, as well as any particular aggravating and mitigating factors. They may also include circumstances surrounding the offence, as well as circumstances personal to the offender.
It is right that courts have the discretion to consider these factors and to tailor sentences accordingly, but that does not mean—and none of my argument should give the impression—that sentencing is not subject to democratic accountability. Parliament is sovereign. The Sentencing Bill, which we are taking through the House, makes changes to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agree to new guidelines before they come into effect, which is a new mechanism for bolstering accountability. We do not want politicians handing down sentences on each given case, leading to wild inconsistencies and unfairness. But of course, sentencing has a democratic function, and in my submission this change strikes the right balance.
The Government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the independent sentencing review, chaired by David Gauke, the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor. This was wide-ranging and evidence-led, examining the full spectrum of sentencing options. The aim of the independent sentencing review was to ensure that the framework is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The review was guided by three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison.
The Government accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations in principle, many of which are now being delivered through the Sentencing Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Our focus remains on ensuring that the justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate.
The Government have made it clear that we need to focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing crime in our communities—more police on our streets, rather than more policing of our tweets. But the Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage, as proposed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.
Freedom of expression is a right that must be protected, but it is not an absolute right; it carries a responsibility to use that freedom honestly and decently. Freedom used irresponsibly corrodes democracy; responsibility without freedom weakens it. The Government’s job is to protect both, and the Online Safety Act and our wider sentencing framework reflect that balance. They are designed to protect individuals, uphold justice and preserve the freedoms that define our society.
The Online Safety Act has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy and support innovation. It does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It involves the regulation of systems and processes that platforms have in place for tackling illegal content and, critically, protecting children. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, where platforms take down content that they should leave on their sites.
As use of the internet has expanded, there has been an increasing awareness that online content and activity can cause serious harm to users. From disinformation to targeted harassment, what happens online now shapes lives offline. The public are right to expect protection online from abuse that would never be tolerated on our streets. There are some circumstances where the criminal threshold is met for genuinely harmful and dangerous material, whether that be online or through other forms of communication. That is why the Online Safety Act introduced three modern communication offences—harmful communications, false communications and threatening communications—ensuring that our legal framework is fit for the digital age.
We have now seen that the new offences introduced by the Act are being applied proportionately and effectively. Earlier this year, an individual was convicted under section 184 of the Act for encouraging a child to undertake serious self-harm through online grooming—the first case of its kind. We have heard about the real dangers that exist online for children, and we must clamp down on them. The case demonstrates the importance of having modern, digital-age offences that are capable of protecting the most vulnerable from genuine life-threatening harm.
The Act also delivered Zach’s law, named after a young epilepsy campaigner, which rightly makes it a criminal offence to send malicious flashing images intended to trigger seizures. It is a clear, common-sense and compassionate example of how the law can evolve to protect people with disabilities from cruelty and real, demonstrable harm online. We should remember that the Online Safety Act is not the only legislation that can lead to custodial sentences for online speech: recent convictions, including that of the individual jailed for issuing death threats against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), show that existing laws on threats and harassment are being applied robustly where speech crosses into criminal intimidation.
Democracy cannot function when intimidation replaces debate. That is the balance we seek to strike in regulating an increasingly influential online world to protect the public—between freedom of expression and the safety of individuals and communities. I thank all Members for their contributions. This is an issue that is important not only to this House but clearly to many people across the country, and it is vital that we allow, and indeed encourage, rigorous debates about the relevant legal framework.
Draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I join the Minister in paying tribute to Baroness Helen Newlove, somebody I had the pleasure of getting to know and working with over the past 12 months. She was a fierce advocate for victims and their families, and her direct experience of an appalling crime made her credible and impactful in all the work she did. I remember discussing the changes that were being made in Committee to the Victims’ Commissioner and using her as an example of someone who made the most of the power she already had. She would have made even more use of the new legislation that strengthens the Victims’ Commissioner.
As the Minister said, we are considering delegated legislation to make an addition to section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was passed by the previous Government. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston—the original sponsoring Minister for that legislation—is with us on the Committee. That Act rightly ensured that victims can never be prevented from reporting crimes to the police and other bodies because of non-disclosure agreements.
We can be proud of introducing that measure. It was passed with a clear mechanism for extending the bodies to which a disclosure could be made. Today, we are making use of that power, to enable victims who have signed NDAs to disclose information to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority when making a claim for compensation, and to the courts or tribunals that deal with any related proceedings. That will ensure that the CICA has a full picture of the circumstances that it should properly consider before deciding what, if any, award should be made to a victim. At present, victims are unable to tell it whether any compensation has already been received, which is a matter it should be able to consider.
The regulations also extend the definition of a qualified lawyer to include registered foreign lawyers. That practical step will allow victims to seek appropriate advice wherever they are based.
As I am sure the Minister will confirm, the original legislation was carefully considered and had various checks and balances in place. As she said, the wholesale recasting of those mechanisms in the Victims and Courts Bill was part of a relatively late amendment that did not have the full and detailed consideration that the House would have been able to give it in Committee. She will therefore understand why we want to see further debate, discussion and consideration of this new approach as the Bill progresses through the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Last week, when told by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) that the Sentencing Bill would cut prison time for rapists and child groomers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said she that would have to “go away and check” whether that was true—the time to check was before she voted for the Bill. Surely the victims Minister knows and can tell the House what proportion of rapists and child groomers will have their prison time cut by Labour’s Sentencing Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Make no mistake: the Government had to make these choices because of the Conservative Government’s catastrophic mismanagement of our prison system. We are not abolishing short sentences, and judges will retain full discretion to keep offenders locked up. We have built safeguards into the systems to protect victims.
I remind the shadow Minister that the greatest threat to victims is the risk of not being able to lock up any dangerous offender in the first place. The measures that the Government are introducing will ensure that that will never happen again.
Dr Mullan
Yet again, we have a Government and a Victims Minister who cannot tell the House basic facts about the implications of their Bill. I will tell her: 60% of rapists and 90% child groomers sent to prison will have their prison time cut. That is appalling.
We also know that knives are all too often a feature of violence against women and girls. The House will have seen the tragic news that Katie Fox, the female victim of a brutal knife attack in Birmingham on Friday, has died. Over the last few weeks, the Labour Government have been talking tough on knife crime, but can the Minister tell the House what proportion of criminals sent to prison for carrying a knife will have to serve only a third of their sentence under Labour’s appalling Sentencing Bill?
Alex Davies-Jones
My thoughts and those of the whole House are, of course, with Katie’s family after the horrific crime that occurred in Birmingham. However, the hon. Member is clearly incapable of facing up to the reality that his Government left behind. It is this Government who are protecting victims and ensuring that violence against women and girls is a political priority, and that we are never again faced with the reality of having to let offenders out early without any safeguards in place. It is this Government who put those safeguards in place and it is this Government who are ensuring that we protect the public.
Sentencing Bill
Kieran Mullan ExcerptsWednesday 29th October 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2025 - large print - (29 Oct 2025)
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 19, and other new clauses tabled in my name and those of Opposition Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for opening the debate. He has drawn attention to an important issue, and something I often ponder. I am aware that many powers are available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, but I never get the sense that they are working as well as we would want them to. My hon. Friend’s new clause would help us to get to the bottom of that.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to do what I can to make clear to Labour Members the enormous negative impact on victims that the Bill will have. The Bill will fundamentally change how we deliver justice for victims of serious violent and sexual crimes in this country. The official Opposition tabled amendments and new clauses in Committee, but we did not get to undertake line-by-line scrutiny in a proper Bill Committee. I suspect that that is because the Government know that the reality of the Bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion of their MPs if they cannot continue the pretence about what it does and does not do. Nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violence offenders. Labour MPs rejected that, and we are now left only with a new clause to remove those measures entirely.
Why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not are dire. The Government have said time and again that no person who has committed what they describe as the “most serious” offences would be released earlier, but we know that to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules applies to all standard determinate sentences, and to every person who is on one.
I reiterate that the independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will be automatic. More than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences, as do more than 90% of those convicted of child grooming offences. Around half of individuals imprisoned for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve those types of sentences. In total, more than 6,000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under the Bill.
I do not know in how many ways I can explain that to Members to overcome the briefing that it is not true, which is happening outside the Chamber. I have no choice but to take Members through the numbers. I have in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of a female aged 16 or over. In total, 590 men on average are sent to prison for that offence every year. One hundred and ninety-seven of them would be excluded from the early release measures because they were given extended determinate sentences or life sentences, but 393 would not. That is 393 rapists—the vast majority—being sent to prison every year who will be let out of prison earlier. That is without including those guilty of the rape of children, many of whom will also be let out of prison earlier.
Many Members have spoken about terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Youens from Justice for Victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet-Grace, who was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The drug dealer fled the scene then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement, to get to their drugs. Are we seriously going to tell people such as Glenn and Becky that those perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen. Every year, 169 offenders on average are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill, and some of them will serve only a third of their sentence.
I have pages of examples. Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 475 people sent to prison every year for stalking, 458 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 427 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 576 offenders sent to prison every year for the offence of sexual activity involving a child under 16, 502 will get out of prison earlier because of the Bill, and 269 of them will serve only a third of their sentence.
This morning, the Home Secretary said that she was glad that the “vile child sex offender”, as she described him, Hadush Kebatu, is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Kebatu was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the measures proposed by the former Justice Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, mean in relation to other vile child sex offenders who have been sent to prison for the same offences? I can tell the House that under the Bill, two thirds of the offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will have to serve only a third of their sentence. The Government celebrate removing those offenders from the streets, while at the same time legislating to put them back on the streets.
It is shameful that Labour Members, with their majority, voted against our amendments and new clauses to remove the early release measures in specific circumstances. Our new clause to remove the measures entirely remains before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on it today.
New clause 19 seeks to address a clear gap in the law that I believe the majority of Members across the House would agree must be closed. At present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders, yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder.
I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lenny Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr Scott was working as a prison officer at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. In 2020, Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep it to himself that a phone had been found in Morgan’s cell. The vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples of corruption in our prison service. Mr Scott could have taken that bribe—he almost certainly knew that Morgan was capable of violent offences and was involved in organised crime—and forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan.
It is a matter of public record that Mr Scott’s time as a prison officer was not unblemished, but when it comes to the question of courage, sheer guts and bravery, refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, and refusing to take the easy way out, Mr Scott was an exemplar, not just to prison officers but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting for years, until 2024, to murder Mr Scott in cold blood. It was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire police found evidence that the month before the murder, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr Scott. He drove close to Mr Scott’s home in Prescot in Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool where Mr Scott sometimes trained, and a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place. Morgan gunned down Mr Scott as he was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. Mr Scott did not stand a chance.
In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Maidenhead—announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police officer or a prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said:
“We ask police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We ask you to take the risks so that we don’t have to…We are clear: life should mean life for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer.”
As prison officers carry out similar duties, the measures rightly included them.
However, the sentencing for Mr Scott’s murder has made it clear that the courts have not understood the will of Parliament, because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It is true to say that his sentenceis longer than most, at 45 years, but Morgan was 35 when he was convicted, so it is not inconceivable that he could get out one day. I do not believe that Parliament intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I was shocked at that outcome; it had not occurred to me that the measure would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers, following my own time as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that it must not have been applied to prison officers, and I raised that in the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
indicated assent.
Dr Mullan
I note that the Minister is nodding.
We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.
New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.
This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.
The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.
A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.
Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.
Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.
However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:
“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”
She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.
I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.
I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.
MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.
My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to.
New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age.
Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—
Steve Barclay
Indeed, change for the worse.
It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines.
I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions.
I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.
Steve Barclay
Indeed.
The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well.
Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote.
Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it.
As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board.
The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.
Jake Richards
In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.
Dr Mullan
I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?
Jake Richards
Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.
Jake Richards
The judge on any given case, where there has been an awful offence such as that, will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. That is absolutely right and that has not changed at all.
I will turn to new clause 19, with which I have huge sympathy. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott’s mother, and I will take him up on that. I am happy to do so and I look forward to it. As he knows, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of homicide law, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the new clause. As he noted, that awful offender was convicted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 45 years. I understand the mischief that the hon. Member is trying to tackle with the new clause, but we will await the Law Commission’s review of homicide law.
Jake Richards
As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course.
I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.
I will briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation. Bad behaviour, such as acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone, can mean more time in custody. We are making that tougher. To ensure that there is more bite and discipline within our prisons, we are doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident by secondary legislation. There will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders. I accept that I and Lord Timpson should look at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education.
We expect prisoners to work in prison and, where they have educational needs, to engage in classes that support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills. That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time that prisoners work in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve that framework to ensure that the earned progression model is as effective as possible.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that he is legislating to let those people out automatically? He expects Labour Members to accept the promise that later, at some point, he might introduce legislation so that some of those people—a small proportion—do not get out, but whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, he is legislating to let them out automatically. That is the consequence of this legislation.
Dr Mullan
With the leave of the House, I will finish by explaining again that whatever good this Bill may do, the consequences for victims and their families’ sense of justice in this country are grave—the very same victims who want to see prosecution rates improve, who want to see court waiting times reduced, and who want to have a criminal justice system that works better for them in so many ways, but who never agreed to a swap. Victims of crime will welcome the changes and improvements that the Labour party says it can deliver, but they should not have to accept that something is taken away just because something else is given.
I say to Back Benchers that the Government can agree spending settlements and come up with plans, but they cannot create the changes in legislation that are needed for this Bill; Back Benchers do that. When the Government need MPs to change legislation, they can say no, such as the Labour Back Benchers who recently said no to welfare reform.
I remind Members what this Bill will do. This Bill will mean that more than 80% of paedophiles who are sent to prison will get out earlier. This Bill will mean that more than 60% of rapists who are sent to prison will get out earlier. It will mean that, in total, more than 6,000 serious violent and sexual offenders will get out of prison earlier.
I ask Labour Members to imagine that, in a couple of years from now, they have secured all the achievements that they want in relation to the criminal justice system. Perhaps a victim of sexual assault comes to see them—perhaps somebody who feels that their experience was improved as a result of the changes that the Government say they are going to make and who, like many victims of sexual assault, has seen their perpetrator sent to prison for three years. That victim will come and see Labour Members, and say that the perpetrator is getting out of prison after just one year—a third of their sentence.
That will be the reality for two thirds of the people sentenced to prison for sexual assault in this country, because the Bill’s measures will mean that they get out of prison after a year. What will Members say to victims? Will they say what they say to me: “It was the Tories,” “I didn’t know,” or “We had no choice”? How hollow will those words sound to victims and their families? Whatever this Bill might do, the price that victims will pay is simply too high—much too high. The Government have no right to tell victims and their families that they must accept a trade-off: if they want things to improve in one direction, they must accept a betrayal in another.
I ask Labour Members to reflect again on the figures I have given them. They are the correct figures and they are the facts, no matter what those on the Government Front Bench have muttered as I have been speaking. I ask Labour Members to force this Government to make different choices. Do not support this betrayal of victims. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can mutter. It will come back to haunt every single one of you when victims ask you, “Why did you vote for something that lets thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier?”
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations extend the period during which Ministers can use powers under the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. The Act allows the Government to implement international agreements on private international law through secondary legislation, rather than by bringing forward new primary legislation each time. Private international law deals with cross-border legal issues, such as which country’s courts can hear a case, which country’s laws apply, and how judgments made in one country can be recognised and enforced in another. It affects families, businesses and individuals alike, helping to provide certainty and clarity when disputes span different jurisdictions.
The Act was introduced by the previous Government as part of the UK’s post-Brexit legal framework. After we left the EU, many of the reciprocal arrangements we had previously participated in stopped applying automatically. The Act therefore provided a mechanism to fill those gaps quickly and efficiently, ensuring that the UK could continue to enter into and implement international agreements that support co-operation in civil and commercial matters.
It was recognised at the time that giving Ministers the ability to implement such agreements through secondary legislation raised important constitutional questions. As a result, Parliament agreed to include the safeguard that the powers would expire after five years unless extended by further parliamentary approval. That is the purpose of the regulations: to extend these powers until December 2030. My understanding is that since the Act came into force, the powers have been used only twice, and I am assured that both instances appear to have been straightforward and to have received broad cross-party support. That limited use reflects the narrow scope and careful oversight that Parliament intended.
Extending the powers will ensure that the Government can continue to give effect to new international agreements in this area without unnecessary delay or legal gaps. It will also maintain the UK’s credibility as a reliable partner in international legal co-operation, giving confidence to those we negotiate with that we have the tools to implement our treaty commitments effectively. However, transparency will help to maintain confidence that the powers will continue to be exercised proportionately and only when necessary, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister.
The Minister mentioned a number of future intended uses, including the Singapore agreement and two UN-related trade agreements. Are there any other agreements on the horizon that the Government intend to use this mechanism for? He also mentioned that the majority of consultees were happy with how things had been promoted to date, which suggests that some people were not. Could he perhaps outline examples of where there have been misgivings about the use of the legislation?