Court Reporting Data
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(5 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I am committed, as are this Government, to greater transparency in our justice system. I am also committed to putting the dignity of victims first. As Courts Minister, I have a concern that people should know what goes on in our courts. It is a way of enhancing transparency and of informing and educating the public, and that is why His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has made and continues to make information available to accredited journalists so that they can keep the public informed about what is taking place in our courts.
In 2020, a company called Courtsdesk entered into an arrangement with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to conduct a pilot providing a new service. That agreement, made under the previous Government, was essentially to take some of the data that we routinely provide—and continue to provide—to journalists, and to re-provide it in a more accessible and easier to search form.
HMCTS was working to expand and improve the service by creating a new data licence agreement with Courtsdesk and others to expand access to justice. It was in the course of making that arrangement with Courtsdesk that data protection issues came to light. What has arisen is that this private company has been sharing private, personal and legally sensitive information with a third-party AI company, including potentially the addresses and dates of birth of defendants and victims. That is a direct breach of our agreement with Courtsdesk, which the Conservatives negotiated.
I believe that everybody in this House would agree that that agreement should be upheld. The Government take our data protection responsibilities seriously. It is for that reason that we decided to stop sharing data with Courtsdesk, a company that was prepared to put victims’ personal data at risk. We instructed it to remove that data from its digital platform. This is about preserving dignity for those who are in our justice system, be they those accused of crime or victims going through the court process. I know that the whole House would agree that that is incredibly important.
Let me be clear: the cessation of our agreement with Courtsdesk does not change the information available to the public about what carries on in our courts, nor does it change the information available to journalists. I recognise that the sort of service that Courtsdesk provided was useful for journalists, because it collated the information and presented it neatly. It is for that reason that officials in my Department are continuing to work, as we had always planned to do, on an alternative platform that allows us to make the information available, but to maintain the guardrails on data protection. I hope to update the House on that in coming weeks. As I conclude, this decision—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. and learned Lady will know that she had three minutes, which she has used. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Mullan
Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies?
The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is.
This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.
Sarah Sackman
I am afraid that the bombast we have just heard is not just inaccurate but dangerous, because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear: there has been no deletion of any court lists. [Interruption.] Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that has been provided.
Let us be absolutely clear: we had an arrangement with Courtsdesk, which we accept provides a useful service. [Interruption.] What Courtsdesk did, which the shadow Minister does not seem to think is a problem, is to pass that information on in breach of the agreement—no doubt for commercial purposes—to an AI company. That information included defendants’ addresses and dates of birth. I do not think anyone in this House would think that such things should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, yet they were provided to an AI company.
We then asked Courtsdesk to delete the information that it held. As of yesterday, I understand that it still has not done so. It accepts that it has acted in breach of its agreement. It threatened the Ministry of Justice with legal action, which it has not chosen to take forward. We are saying that when a company acts in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, it is very serious. I take data protection seriously, but there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to access through the usual channels the lists that we are talking about. That access remains open today, and it remains open to journalists to contact HMCTS.
Indeed, we want to put this system on a securer footing with the necessary guardrails. [Interruption.] I will repeat, because the shadow Minister is muttering through my entire response, that no one has deleted any court records. Everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual historic crimes remains accessible. Case law remains accessible, and the court lists remain accessible.
Open justice is vital, but I will not have a wild west of private companies acting in breach of agreements with Government and passing sensitive data on to third-party AI companies. That will not do, and the shadow Minister knows that if he were in my position, it would not have been acceptable to him either.
Sarah Sackman
I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.
Dr Mullan
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In a world where so many people walk on by or look the other way, I believe it is vital to the rule of law that our whole society gets behind people who are willing to stand up and be counted. We are joined in the Gallery today by one such person—Mark Hehir, a bus driver. Mark leapt to the aid of a passenger who was robbed, and the police said everything he did was entirely lawful, but his employer, Metroline, sacked him. More than 120,000 people have signed my petition giving their full support to Mark. Does the Justice Secretary agree that Mark is a hero who deserves our support?
Dr Mullan
I welcome those remarks, and I am sure the public will want us to work across the parties on these issues, but this is not an isolated case. I have heard from employers themselves, shop workers and bus drivers that they want to do the right thing, but the law inhibits them from doing so. The Conservatives will be bringing forward proposals to introduce good samaritan protections in civil law for both employers and employees. Will the Secretary of State work with us to get that on to the statute book?
Sentencing Bill
Kieran Mullan ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Act 2026 View all Sentencing Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - large print - (20 Jan 2026)
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend, a member of the Justice Committee, always makes thoughtful contributions on justice issues, but in particular on IPP. A balance must be struck between public safety and ensuring rehabilitation. The Government think that the Bill has gone some way to doing that, but there is always room for further review and assessment as we proceed, and Lord Timpson, who is leading on this piece of work for the Government, will continue to engage with the Justice Committee on the issue.
I am very grateful for the improvements that have been made to the Bill during its passage in the House of Lords. I hope, particularly given the undertakings that I have given on the provision of sentencing transcripts, that all parties will be able to support the Government’s amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 7. They represent a major step forward for transparency and for victims.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There is no doubt that our justice system faces significant challenges. I have always acknowledged that, and during recent debates on a wide range of issues, from sentencing to prison capacity to probation to jury trials, there has been cross-party acknowledgement that for decades, under a number of Governments of different colours, not enough investment or political priority has been given to our justice system. That, however, should not and must not serve as an excuse for this Government to make changes to our justice system that damage it and fail to address the challenges before us. There are alterations that elements of the Ministry of Justice have always wanted to make. We should not let them use the excuse of the current challenges to finally slip them through the net. That is what we see happening in the Bill, in relation to the proposals on jury trials and, even more clearly, in relation to measures that are to the detriment of victims.
I welcome elements of this Bill, and I will discuss some examples. The Minister mentioned the restriction zones and the domestic abuse markers, but these measures are overwhelmingly outweighed by the fact that at the heart of the Bill is a catastrophic blow to victims’ search for justice: it will let thousands of rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier. The Minister mentioned the independent sentencing review; I remind Members that it gave absolutely no consideration whatsoever to what victims and the public think of the proposals on sentencing. The report is an insult to victims and their families, as many have told me directly.
During the Commons stages of the Bill, every party other than Labour joined the Conservatives in voting against these dangerous proposals, including the Liberal Democrats. In fact, a number of Labour MPs bravely abstained. It should be a matter of deep shame for Liberal Democrat Members that they have since joined Labour in voting to let rapists, paedophiles and serious violent offenders out of prison earlier, especially as they have previously articulated why this is wrong. It is a complete betrayal of victims of serious crime and their families.
This is likely to be my final opportunity to say that I am confident that Labour MPs will come to regret these elements of the Bill, and will find it difficult to explain themselves when victims see perpetrators of crimes such as rape, child sex offences and child grooming leave prison—sometimes having served only a third of their sentence—because of MPs’ support for these measures. I will do whatever I can to ensure that victims know who made those choices, although so many alternatives were available to them. However, I have to accept that this Government’s majority, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, has for now ended the campaign against this change, so we should consider the Lords amendments that are before the House today.
As I know that the public greatly value constructive cross-party working, I will begin with an important issue on which we were able to secure Government support. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that when a police officer, prison officer or probation officer, including a former officer, is murdered because of their service, a whole life order is the starting point for sentencing. This proposal originated from the Opposition, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the principle, following my meetings and campaigning with Paula and Neil Scott, whose son Lenny, a former prison officer, was murdered because he refused a bribe from an inmate.
Parliament has long been clear that those putting themselves in direct danger by confronting and standing up to the most dangerous people in our society should have the greatest possible protection from our law: a whole life order. We had previously legislated to that effect through the introduction of a mandatory whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers who are undertaking their duties, but the case of Lenny Scott highlighted a gap in the law. Lenny was brutally murdered, years after his service as a prison officer, in revenge for handing in a phone that he found in a prison cell search. He had moved into a new phase of his life, and was enjoying work, the gym, and time with his children and the rest of his family, but he was shot in a car park late at night, simply for doing his job. Lenny’s mum told me that she knew something was wrong when Lenny did not come home that evening. She even went out in the middle of the night to look for him, only to have the police arrive at her door at 1 am with the devastating news.
It has been a true privilege to work with Paula, and with Lenny’s dad, Neil. I extend my sincere thanks to Lord Timpson in the other place, and to the Minister, for taking the time to meet them both, and for agreeing to work with them further to see what else we might do to improve protections for our prison officers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was clear from the meeting what decent, moral people they are, which explains the sort of person that Lenny was. I am also very grateful to Lord Timpson for bringing fresh thinking to this area by including probation officers in the measure. They too must work closely with dangerous, violent offenders, and sometimes stand up to them to protect the public. They face the same dangers, so they should get the same protections.
Although our wider focus must always be on preventing crime and protecting the public, it is right that clear gaps in the law should be addressed when they arise. The Opposition therefore support Lords amendment 1 in lieu of our amendment, and I know that Lenny’s parents, family and friends have been delighted to see its progress in the House. In my time working with victims on campaigns, I have learned the pitfalls of naming a law after an individual case—there are always others who might warrant the remembrance of their experiences in the naming of a law—but Lenny’s family have every right to call this measure “Lenny’s Law”.
I will now consider amendments that attempt to deliver much-needed reform, but which are simply insufficient. Lords amendments 2 to 5 all concern the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council. Between them, they provide guidelines for specific scenarios in which the Lord Chancellor does not approve the Sentencing Council’s business plan; conditions for withdrawing consent to the Sentencing Council’s issuing of sentencing guidelines; and conditions for withholding consent to a request from the Sentencing Council to issue allocation guidelines, if it is necessary withhold that consent in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. We saw in the debacle of two-tier sentencing just how far the Sentencing Council has strayed, and these measures will not fundamentally correct that. The official Opposition have made it clear—I will restate it—that our firm policy position is that we would abolish the Sentencing Council, restore power to elected Ministers who are directly accountable to the public, and give Parliament a role when it comes to sentencing guidelines.
The functions of the Sentencing Council in delivering consistency through sentencing are well recognised, and it is not our intention to do away with the functions that will be restored to the Lord Chancellor’s Office, but we believe it is for the Justice Secretary to be responsible for our sentencing guidelines, not a group of unelected individuals with no direct accountability to the public and limited accountability of any kind. Consultation with the public is not the same as accountability to the public, and we are clear that Parliament should have the power to act. Therefore, while these amendments are not a point of contention in the Bill’s progress and we will not divide the House on them, I raise them to point out that they would not be part of a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government, as we would abolish the Sentencing Council entirely and fully restore accountability.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
This Bill delivers the long-term, joined-up, sustainable reform that our criminal justice system desperately needs. I will comment on amendments 1 to 7 and 14, which will strengthen the Bill. We inherited a system on the brink, with prisons close to running out of places, courts paralysed by backlogs, police forced to operate with one hand tied behind their backs, trust broken and fear raised—a breakdown of law and order that left communities such as mine in Portsmouth paying the price.
In Portsmouth and across the country, the justice system is struggling under the weight of an unprecedented backlog. Crown courts in England and Wales now have between 77,000 and 78,000 outstanding cases waiting to be heard. Ten of thousands are open for a year or more, and some defendants are waiting for up to four years before trial dates are even available. Those delays mean that victims in my city and beyond are denied timely justice, eroding confidence in our courts. The Sentencing Bill and wider reforms are a crucial step towards tackling the backlogs, speeding up justice and ensuring that offences are addressed without further delay.
The Conservatives talk tough on crime, but their record tells a very different story. They increased sentencing lengths without building the capacity to support them, and in 14 years added just 500 prison places. When the system finally broke, they released tens of thousands—[Interruption.] They released 10,000 offenders early, largely in secret, shattering public confidence in justice. This Government are working hard to fix their mess. We believe in prisons. Many offenders must go there and some for a very long time. We have already opened 2,500 places and we are on track for achieving 4,000 by 2031—the biggest expansion since Victorian times.
We also have to be honest about the challenge. We cannot just build our way out of a Tory prison crisis. We owe it to the British public to reduce crime and the number of victims. That is why the Bill reforms sentencing, so that punishments can cut crime and rehabilitation can help reduce crime and the number of victims. That includes tough, credible and visible punishments in our community. Offenders will be closely monitored through tagging, restrictions on where they can go, and strict conditions that curb their freedom. Courts will be able to impose no-go zones, banning offenders from entering specific areas such as town centres, retail zones, building sites or industrial estates where they have previously offended. Those are not soft options. They are enforceable restrictions backed by modern technology with real consequences if they are breached. This approach is vital for crimes that devastate working people.
I would particularly like to mention the horrendous, life-changing crime of tool theft. In Portsmouth and across the country, tradespeople have told me this story time and time again. When tools are stolen, it is not just about the property they lose; it is about income lost, jobs cancelled, damage to reputation and families pushed into financial stress overnight. In some cases, it has led to our tradespeople taking their own lives. I have campaigned relentlessly on this issue, working closely with tradespeople, industry bodies, police, insurers and retailers. Together, we made the case that tool theft must be treated as a serious and repeated crime. As a result of that work, the Bill and these amendments will deliver real change for victims. Repeat tool offenders will now face tougher sentences in court and in our communities.
Amanda Martin
We are clearing up the mess left by the Tories. People are still waiting for their day in court. It is not okay for a crime to be committed and for there not even to be a sentence for four or five years. If the shadow Minister would like to intervene again, I will give way.
Amanda Martin
They will be serving longer than under the Conservatives, who did not care about tradespeople or construction crime. Repeat tool theft offenders will now face tougher sentencing because of a Labour Government, including tagging on release, strict movement restrictions, robust unpaid work and no-go areas that stop them returning to the places where they targeted working people. This is about disrupting criminal behaviour, protecting livelihoods and showing that Labour is the only party that stands squarely with those who work hard and play by the rules.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that the heart of this amendment are victims and their ability to understand what has come in the sentencing remarks. So much happens in a court trial, whether it means reliving past trauma or confronting a perpetrator, and listening to proceedings can feel like a foreign language for many. Others, who choose not to attend the sentencing hearing, have no knowledge of what was said. That is why having consistent free access to transcripts is vital. It provides an opportunity to process the events of court proceedings afterwards or to read them for the first time. For many, this can provide closure and an opportunity to move on, but it is also the route for appealing a sentence if they believe it to have been unduly lenient.
Providing victims with court transcripts free of charge would markedly improve experiences for victims and survivors, but I do have some questions regarding the Government’s amendment in lieu. Could the Minister provide some clarity as to whether the term “victim” is applied as per the definition used by the victims code and whether, in the case that a victim is unable to personally request sentencing remarks—such as victims without capacity or victims who are children—immediate family members of victims are included within the provision?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The victims code lays out that if a victim is deceased, the immediate family—parents or siblings—would be included. That is why I asked that question of the Minister.
Subsection (3)(c) of the amendment in lieu allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions to the requirement to provide a transcript of sentencing remarks. What sort of exceptions do the Government anticipate, and as per subsection (3)(d), what sort of information may be omitted from a transcript? If the Secretary of State does not plan to use sweeping powers to except or omit, why are such provisions included in the amendment? The previous Government ran a very limited pilot of free court transcripts. Will this Government publish a detailed review of that pilot?
We believe that this provision could and should go much further, and as per the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and Baroness Brinton in the other place, we have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would mean that all transcripts are provided free of charge, including judicial summaries and bail decisions.
The Lady Chief Justice recently spoke to the Justice Committee about a pilot with HM Courts and Tribunals Service on the use of AI for transcripts, especially in the asylum and immigration courts. She described it as a “great success”, so I would be keen to understand if the Government will work with the Liberal Democrats to progress this work. We do appreciate the growing cross-party support on this issue and the work of all in the other place to achieve this important first step today.
We also welcome the Government committing to a statutory annual report into the state of prison capacity and, importantly, the Probation Service. This is an important mechanism for oversight that will improve long-term assessments of the health of our justice system. We were very happy to see the Government accept our amendment to remove clause 35 from the Bill, which did nothing to address the crisis in our justice system and was totally at odds with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We welcome the amendments tabled by the Government to strengthen protections in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s approval of sentencing guidelines.
We have been supportive of many of the provisions in the Bill aimed at addressing some of the key failings in our crumbling justice system. Our courts, prisons and the Probation Service are all at breaking point, and without urgent intervention they are at risk of failing completely. The Bill offered an opportunity to ease some of the pressures our system faces, where currently the needs of victims, offenders and the system more widely are too often ignored. We also need to ensure that our prison system is one of rehabilitation—one that ends the cycle of reoffending and reduces long-term pressures. All of the Liberal Democrats’ work on this Bill has been in that vein, in order to get the legislation into a better place to achieve those aims.
To conclude, we realise the mess that our justice system finds itself in. We have always aimed to work collaboratively and productively in a cross-party way to ensure that we can begin to turn the tide on this crisis, and we will continue to do so. We need a sustainable solution, which includes cutting reoffending, tackling the court backlog to reduce the number of people in prison on remand, and properly resourcing our Probation Service, which will no doubt feel the impact of this legislation most acutely. The Bill contains a number of proposals that Lib Dems have campaigned for as part of the wider package of reform, but it still could go much further to ensure that it is fit for purpose to protect victims and safeguard our justice system for the future.
Jake Richards
Today is a pivotal day. Subject to agreement from this House and from the other place, the Bill will complete all its stages and shortly become law. I want to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). Although I was the Minister to take the Bill through the House, his painstaking work in developing the policy was fundamental and he deserves great credit.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin); at every opportunity, including this debate, she rightly raises her campaign to clamp down on tool theft and she is a fine champion for her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). She brings huge experience to debates on these issues. We are taking measures to give prison staff further protections, but I am happy to speak with her about what more the Government can do.
We have aired the debate on the Sentencing Council before. The Conservative position was developed by the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).
Jake Richards
The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.
Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.
We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.
Jury Trials
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Foody
Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend. I am immensely frustrated at the rhetoric on that point.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Were backlogs higher or lower in 2010 than they were in 2019, before the pandemic?
Emma Foody
Unfortunately, I did not hear the apology that should have preluded the question, for the absolute carnage the Conservatives left in our courts on their watch. They have shown no recognition or contrition for what they left behind. In every single one of those cases there is at least one victim unable to access justice. [Interruption.] I am glad that Opposition Members find it so amusing. They would find it much less amusing if they were at the other end of the justice system. Every victim is waiting to move on. Every witness is stuck in limbo. Every defendant is entitled to have their case heard, within a reasonable time, to repay their debt or to begin to be rehabilitated.
I speak about this issue not just as a Member of Parliament, but as a former member of the judiciary, having sat as a magistrate. I have made the decisions in courtrooms that I knew would have a lasting impact on people’s lives.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am pleased to wind up this Opposition day debate on the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary’s ill-considered, poorly evidenced and rash plan to curtail one of our cornerstone rights—the right to a trial by jury—which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) colourfully described as one in which the bottom fell out of the Government’s argument.
I disagree with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary on very many issues, but today, for once, I find myself in fulsome, wholehearted agreement with not just the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). I agree with all three of them that jury trials are a crucial, vital part of our justice system that should be protected wherever possible. Even with this Prime Minister, who has an unrivalled reputation for having opinions that last as long as they remain popular with whoever’s vote he is seeking at a particular point in time, we are in the extraordinary position where the Government are now putting forward a proposal that the Justice Secretary, the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister himself all previously argued vigorously against.
In fact, I am going to indulge in a degree of parliamentary plagiarism—I am going to let them do the hard work of writing at least some of my speech for today. First, I will hand over to the Justice Minister, who previously said on the issue of limiting jury trials:
“Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work…We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us. To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act.”
Next, let me ask the Justice Secretary to take over. He said:
“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”
He also said:
“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”
I could not have said it better myself.
Finally, although I appreciate that he is a busy man, I will lean on the Prime Minister’s carefully considered words. He said:
“The general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions”,
and,
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”
That question of balance is at the heart of the matter. The Minister, as well as Labour Back Benchers—thin on the ground though they have been—have rightly pointed out that we have criminal trials without juries. That is a fact, but it is no argument for these measures. If that is the Government’s argument, we could simply do away with jury trials entirely without anyone being concerned. It is and has always been a balance, but as the Justice Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister understand—or understood at one point at least—altering that balance should be considered only when there is no other option.
To draw a comparison that illustrates the seriousness of the matter, during the pandemic—at the heart of the crisis that was widely accepted to be the biggest challenge to face our nation since world war two—jury trials continued. In fact, it was during world war two that we last saw proposals anything like as radical as those we are considering today, but even they did not come close to this proposed curtailment. During that time, we reduced the number of jurors from 12 to seven in most cases. When our nation was under attack and every element of life was turned over to the war effort, we modified but fundamentally retained the right to jury trials.
I am pleased to say that the meeting of minds between me and the triumvirate who are making this decision is only the beginning; I find myself in common cause with 37 Labour MPs today. It is fair to say that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), as well as the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) are very far from me on the political spectrum, but, like other colleagues, they are clear that these proposals are wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree. When there are 37 names on a signed public letter, any decent Whip would know that there are at least the same number lurking in the background, not willing to go public but rushing to answer the phone call from the Whips at the weekend to say that they are not happy with the proposals.
What do those 37 Members say? They say that the proposal is “madness”, that it
“will cause more problems than it solves”,
and that
“the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government could do to more effectively reduce the backlog.”
That final point takes us right back to the issue of balance. The Government have quite simply failed to articulate why these proposals are the only way forward. They might have received a more sympathetic reception had they strained every sinew to tackle the issue and truly exhausted all other options since their election.
As our motion acknowledges, the courts are under unprecedented pressure—no one disputes that. The delays are too long, victims are waiting too long for justice, and defendants are left in limbo. Prior to the pandemic, the Crown court backlogs were lower than those that we inherited from the previous Labour Government—I do not remember Labour MPs being concerned about that at the time—but then covid hit and placed unprecedented strain on the criminal justice system, leaving a long and difficult legacy. The result was an enormous reduction in court capacity that led to backlogs shooting up in a way they never had before.
I remind the ouse again that even during that challenging time, there was cross-party support for the guiding principle that jury trials should continue. After the pandemic, England and Wales resumed jury trials faster than many comparable countries, following one of the shortest suspensions anywhere, because they were treated as a priority. The previous Government opened, and extended the use of, 20 Nightingale courtrooms, increased the number of judges and raised the judicial retirement age to retain experience in the system. In a short number of years, we increased the number of sitting days by more than 20,000—an unprecedented level. Despite that, the loss of capacity could not simply be undone.
Catherine Atkinson
In the light of the shadow Minister’s comments about sitting days, does he condemn the Conservative cut of nearly 15% of sitting days in 2019 and congratulate this Labour Government on increasing the number of sitting days?
Dr Mullan
As the shadow Justice Secretary outlined, there has not been enough investment in the justice system over many decades. I also want to make it clear that the claim about a record number of sitting days is a bit of a statistical anomaly, because, as the Government know, there was a change in how sitting days are measured. Using the historical measure to make the comparison, we matched that number of sitting days—and perhaps even surpassed it. Of course, we uncapped sitting days for a number of years during the pandemic. This Government have failed to do that, and they have failed to rapidly increase the number of sitting days, which the Institute for Government said makes things more difficult. As I said, there is no dispute about whether there are long-standing issues, as Members across the House acknowledge. The question is what to do about them.
Let us be clear about how many of the unacceptably long waits are the result of a wait for a jury trial. The Justice Secretary has rightly been criticised for quoting statistics about victim drop-out rates in a deeply misleading way. We do not want to see any victims drop out for any reason, or any long waits, but fewer than 10% of drop-outs occur post-charge, and that figure is coming down. It is not helpful to understanding this issue for Members to cite waits of six or seven years that in fact relate to the delay from alleged offence to sentencing. Yes, waits for trial from point of charge are too long, but that is just part of the picture.
Jury trials are not a quirk or a happenstance for how we deliver criminal justice in this country; they are a foundational principle of our justice system reaching back to Magna Carta. For more than 800 years, ordinary men and women have been trusted to sit in judgment, to weigh evidence, and to decide guilt or innocence. That public participation is not a flaw in the system; it is one of its greatest sources of legitimacy. Removing juries, even for a narrow category of cases, let alone the radical changes before us, alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, and replaces collective judgment with individual arbitrary authority.
Catherine Atkinson
In light of the shadow Minister’s comments, does he think it was wrong of the then Conservative Government, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to make offences such as criminal damage and common assault summary only, removing juries for those offences?
Dr Mullan
I wonder whether the hon. Member was listening to my speech. I have said throughout that the issue is one of balance. As the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Minister have said, we must tread carefully; for the hon. Member to draw comparisons between minor changes and wholescale huge reductions in the use of jury trials shows that she fails to understand that the issue is one of balance. The obvious flaw in the argument being made by the Government in support of these measures—that they are to tackle what we should all consider a temporary problem—is that the measures are permanent. There is no plan to reverse them when the backlog is down, as the temporary measures in world war two that I mentioned were reversed.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that curtailing jury trials will not solve the delays but simply push the backlog back to the appeal courts? Worse still, it risks creating a two-tier justice system where those who can afford to appeal will do so, and those who cannot will be left behind.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member is pointing out one of many flaws in the arguments that the Government have put forward to justify their case, and they simply have not made it. Court sitting days are still being wasted. Yesterday alone, more than 50 Crown court rooms sat empty.
Let us be clear: while the Government lean heavily on at least some of what has been proposed in Sir Brian Leveson’s review, they need only to have looked into the bowels of the MOJ to unearth those exact ideas. That is because—this will come as little surprise to Conservative Members—we have been here before with Labour Governments. As Justice Secretary when Labour was last in office, Jack Straw also proposed removing the right to a jury trial for either-way offences. As is the case today, rightly, Members of both Houses and people from across the political spectrum united to stop those proposals. We can do away with the pretence that this is purely the workings of an independent figure. I am afraid that Sir Brian has become a shield for defending these ideas—a shield that Labour Members lacked last time around, and that they obviously hope will make the difference this time.
We are right to fear that this is the thin end of the wedge. Thanks to leaked plans, we know what the Justice Secretary wanted to do, which was to go much further than even these proposals by removing jury trial for sentences of up to five years. Where will the Government go next if they succeed with these proposals?
It is also impossible to ignore the wider context. A number of my constituents have raised with me, and other Members of the House, the point that while the Government argue that fundamental legal safeguards must be set aside, they are spending £1.8 billion on a nationwide mandatory digital ID system. The Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society have all warned against the proposals. They have been clear that restricting jury trials will not solve the backlog, and risks distracting from the real work that needs to be done: fixing the basics, investing in infrastructure and people, and making them function efficiently.
I close by going a little closer to home. Rudyard Kipling, who lived in my constituency—you can find a statute of him in the village of Burwash—said in his 1911 poem, “The Reeds of Runnymede”, about the centrality to British freedom of trial by jury—[Interruption.] I will finish with this, Madam Deputy Speaker, if Labour Members could stop their chuntering. He said:
“At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Your rights were won at Runnymede!
No freeman shall be fined or bound,
Or dispossessed of freehold ground,
Except by lawful judgment found
And passed upon him by his peers.
Forget not, after all these years,
The Charter signed at Runnymede.”
Conservative Members have not forgotten. Let us hope that enough Labour Members have also not forgotten either.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This week, the Government pledged action on violence against women and girls—an issue that I know many Members across this House care deeply about, including many Labour Members—but this so-called earned progression model will see thousands of rapists, child groomers and paedophiles let out of prison earlier. Shockingly, last week a Government Minister said that the reason why they could not be excluded from the model was that it would increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations. Does the Minister think that a single victim of rape should expect the offender to be let out of prison earlier because the Government cannot calculate the release date properly?
Jake Richards
We will not take any lessons about violence against women and girls from the Conservatives. Prosecutions for rape went down under the last Conservative Government, but we are taking action to protect women and girls. I will repeat this point: the scenario we faced last summer was that when those who committed the worst offences were convicted, there was not space in prison to keep them behind bars. That is wholly unacceptable, and this Government will never let that happen again.
Dr Mullan
The House will have heard that the Government are refusing to exclude those types of offenders. I am pleased to say that a number of Labour Members share my discomfort about the measures that the Government are taking; in fact, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) tabled an amendment to exclude existing offenders from the measures. Why does the Minister think that she did that?
Jake Richards
I speak regularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), who was an experienced Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor. When I speak to her, she tells me that the worst scenario for prosecutors who are trying to keep our streets safe is prisons being full, so that offenders cannot be kept behind bars. That was the situation in this country under the last Government, and we are fixing their mess.
Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 months 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 Lewell. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of this statutory instrument. Having reviewed it, the Opposition will not be opposing the instrument this evening.
Each amendment is limited in scope and responds to specific gaps that have been clearly identified. One of the clearest areas where that is the case is the provision for self-employed individuals and those employed directly by private individuals. As the explanatory memorandum explains, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended enabling self-employed people working in sensitive roles with children to obtain checks against the DBS children’s barred list.
I understand that the Government’s subsequent progress update confirmed that, by the end of 2025, self-employed people and those employed by private individuals will be able to access high-level DBS checks. We fully recognise the importance of those recommendations, and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they are still on track for that. Forgive me if those checks have already been made available, but if they have not, are we on track for the end of the year? At present, an individual carrying out a role within an organisation can be subject to the appropriate enhanced or barred list check, while a self-employed person doing identical work cannot.
That inconsistency is neither sensible nor safe. It is also worth recognising that this direction of travel is not new; the previous Conservative Government accepted the principle of the IICSA recommendations and began the process of reviewing the supervision exemption and considering widening access to barred list checks.
The changes relating to electronic monitoring contractors are justified and a proportionate response to risk. Staff working with monitoring technology occupy positions of trust, and allowing fuller disclosure checks will help to reassure the public that the system is robust and that those carrying out that important work meet the necessary standards of integrity.
Likewise, enabling the Department for Work and Pensions and its contractors to require disclosure of spent convictions for registered healthcare professionals reflects the sensitive nature of the work that those professionals undertake. They are individuals who assess vulnerable claimants, often with access to personal and medical information; it is appropriate that they are subject to the same safeguarding standards expected in the NHS and other comparable roles.
Taken together, these changes strike the right balance between supporting rehabilitation and ensuring public protection. They are targeted, proportionate and consistent with public expectations and existing safeguarding frameworks. My questions for the Minister are about the implications for the volume of checks that we might expect as a result of more people being suitable for them, and whether he can update us with important contextual information. In my local area, for example, some people experience significant delays and sometimes wait so long for checks to be completed that job offers fall through.
We support these changes, but while they might be well intended and sensible, the Minister is introducing yet more checks into the system, so it is important that he outlines whether there are any issues in the current system—which I think there are—with people getting checks. If he is introducing more, he needs to keep them on a tighter rein. I know that the process is devolved to each local police force, but it would be good if the Minister gave an overview of how well he thinks it is currently performing.
Jake Richards
That might be a question for Home Office colleagues to respond to, but I will look into it, and if I can respond, I certainly will.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 5, Clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert “by—
(i) a recognised news publisher, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 56 of that Act), or
(ii) a person in the course of working for such a publisher.” .—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment clarifies that the journalism exemption from the offence of misleading the public only applies to media entities and those that work for them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 2, clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(10) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director for Public Prosecutions.”
This amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger.
As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false.
However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level.
It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation.
Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that action. That is why we think a tighter safeguard should be required.
It is not in the amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister about what thought has been given to whether prosecution should be subject to the Attorney General’s permission. Forgive me: I do not know if that is already part of the legislation; I do not think it is, but the Minister will know. For example, when it comes to public order offences—another potentially contentious area—we ask the Attorney General to give permission for prosecution to serve as a safeguard against the inappropriate use of measures.
My final, more general point about clause 11, which we touched on earlier, is about the maximum sentence of two years. What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether there have been any common law versions of a prosecution for this sort of thing in which someone was given a sentence of more than two years? Are the Government sure that this is not unnecessarily constrained compared with the current common law position, which is unlimited? I appreciate that the offences in question are normally more to do with misconduct rather than misleading, but it would still be helpful to get that reassurance.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. We agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind the amendment, and I can assure him that the Bill achieves that intent. Schedule 3 makes further provision regarding clause 5 and clause 11 offences. Paragraph 2(2) sets out that,
“Proceedings for an offence under section 11 may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
With that clarification, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment. Hopefully, I can answer some of his other queries as we move through the debate.
Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, which is designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough, where officials intentionally spread a false narrative to protect their reputation and caused harm as a result. That, as the shadow Minister rightly states, is punishable by up to two years in prison. We all know the harm that caused and how, three decades on, families are still fighting for justice and accountability for what the spreading of that narrative did. The Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Tuesday was clear: a lie was told; a false narrative was spread to protect reputations and avoid consequences. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no family ever has to go through what those families went through and continue to go through. I can only imagine how hard that report was to read and the pain that they continue to feel.
The new offence will ensure that when a public official has misled the public, there is accountability. To have committed the offence, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or been reckless as to whether their actions would do so. By reckless, we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. It does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must have known or ought to have known that their act is seriously improper.
It will be for the judge and the jury to determine whether that test has been met, but clause 11(3)(a) sets out minimum conditions that must be present: that the act—
“involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated…in respect of matters of significant concern to the public”.
That will avoid capturing minor instances of lying or misleading on trivial political or private matters. The act must have caused or have the potential to cause harm. Harm, as we have already discussed, is broadly defined, including economic, physical or psychological harm, including distress. The purpose of this is to avoid capturing inconsequential matters, such a Minister lying about where they went to university or competing in a chess tournament or a local government official overstating their council’s performance. Although these sorts of lies should entail professional consequences, we do not think they meet the bar for criminal sanctions. The individual must also have departed significantly from what would have been expected of them in carrying out their functions. This is to ensure that where it may be necessary to mislead someone as part of a person’s job—for example, as part of an undercover police operation—that is not captured.
This clause as introduced does not apply to devolved matters. We have written to all the devolved Governments to request that the offence be extended in their jurisdiction in line with the other provisions on duty of candour, which apply across the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all confirmed their agreement to extend the offence, and we will be extending the offences accordingly. We hope to bring forward amendments on the territorial extent on Report to ensure full coverage for the United Kingdom.
Subsection (4) also excludes any act done for the purposes of journalism. That is to avoid capturing public service broadcasters and those working for them who would otherwise meet the definition of a public official. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting, as we have already discussed.
Subsection (6) includes a reasonable excuse defence, with specific defences for the exercise of functions by the intelligence services and armed forces on active service. That is necessary to make it clear that when officials can prove that they misled the public to protect national security or this country’s defence operations, they are not subject to criminal sanctions. I stress, however, that this will not prevent the successful prosecution of members of the security services or armed forces who mislead the public for any other purposes, such as personal gain or to protect their reputation.
This is a transformative offence that will ensure that when something goes wrong and public officials lie to the public, there are serious consequences. It will act as a powerful deterrent against the sorts of state cover-ups that we have sadly see all too often.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked me about offences which potentially attract two or more years in prison. I will write to him on that and come back on the specifics, as well as on his question about the Attorney General. With that, I commend clause 11 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Offences under Part 2: related provision
Dr Mullan
Despite not relating directly to the Bill, the matter of pensions has come up in Committee a couple of times. We do need to explore that, because there are many situations where people walk off into the sunset. It seems to me that the one lever we still have over people is their pensions. Have the Government considered how such a provision might be used in the future? The Opposition will be looking at it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public.
The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention. To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion.
Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will speak to each of the clauses in turn. Clause 12 will introduce the first of two new statutory offences to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. In its 2020 report, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence should be abolished and replaced with two new offences that broadly replicate the coverage of the common law offence. In acting on those recommendations, the Government do not intend to change significantly the type of conduct the criminal law will capture. Like the common law offence, the new offences are intended to capture only wrongdoing at the most serious level.
The clause establishes the new offence of seriously improper acts, and is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful misconduct under the common law offence. The seriously improper acts offence is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person, or to cause detriment to someone else. They must know or ought to have known that any reasonable person would regard their act as seriously improper.
The offence can capture a wide range of conduct. “Using” an office can include both acts and omissions. “Benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment including, but not limited to, financial gain or loss, protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, and benefits or detriments of a physical or sexual nature, whether temporary or permanent. When we talk about protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, we intend to capture serious situations where someone uses their office in the way that we associate with the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster: the manipulation of evidence in order to protect the reputation of a person, including an organisation, or the spreading of allegations about other people, designed to damage their reputation.
The clause is about not the usual back and forth of everyday politics, but severe abuses of power that undermine the very basis of public service. An act is seriously improper if a reasonable person would consider it so. There is a list of factors that the jury must consider to make that determination, including the extent to which the act involved an intention to mislead or be dishonest by withholding, covering up or misusing information. A defence is available if the person can show that they had a reasonable excuse for their action—for example, a public office holder has to disregard one fraudulent benefits claim to uncover a more serious, larger scale benefits fraud. The offence is indictable and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. That puts it on par with similar statutory offences, such as bribery and fraud.
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence. That is to safeguard against the risk of spurious claims against public officials, including politicians. We have already heard examples of that. It will ensure that only cases that are serious in nature and justify criminalisation are prosecuted. It does not require the personal consent of the director—consent can be delegated—so it should not cause any undue administrative burden.
The clause will ensure that serious misconduct and corrupt behaviour by those in public office will continue to result in criminal sanctions, and that those who abuse positions of public trust are held to account for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 13 establishes the new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful neglect of duty under the common law offence. The new offence is committed when a person who holds public office either causes or creates significant risk of causing someone else to suffer critical harm, in breach of a duty to prevent other people from suffering such harm. They must know that they are under such a duty, and their act must fall far below what could reasonably have been expected of them in the circumstances. The offence requires that the person be under a duty to prevent critical harm that arises by virtue of the public office that they hold. That means that the offence can be committed only by public office holders whose roles inherently involve a duty to prevent critical harm—for example, service personnel, firefighters and the police. It does not apply to public office holders whose roles do not put them under a duty to protect the public from critical harm.
The offence is made out only if the public official knows or ought to know that they are subject to that duty. The breach of duty must cause either critical harm or a significant risk of that harm materialising. It will not capture cases where a negligible or insignificant risk of harm is caused. The breach of duty must also have been intentional or reckless. These are both very high criminal thresholds. To act recklessly means to proceed in full awareness of the potential outcome and in circumstances where it is unreasonable to take the risk.
Only the most serious breaches of duty are captured by the offence. The requirement that the act must fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances ensures that minor or honest mistakes and legitimate but risky operational decisions made in challenging circumstances will not be captured. For example, a law enforcement officer having to decide in the moment whether to take a particular risky operational decision would be caught by the offence only if they intentionally recklessly breach the duty, their act falls far below the standards reasonably expected of them in those circumstances, and they have no reasonable excuse for their actions.
The offence will be triable on indictment only and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. That is commensurate with other offences where a failure of duty leads to serious or critical consequences, such as gross negligence manslaughter. As with the offence in clause 12, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence in clause 13. That is to guard against the risk of spurious claims being made against public officials in this position and to ensure that only the most serious cases are prosecuted.
Clause 14 clarifies the territorial application of the new offences in clauses 12 and 13. It makes clear that a public office holder can commit the seriously improper acts or breach of duty offences by their actions either within England and Wales, or in other UK territories such as Scotland or Northern Ireland. The offences in clauses 12 and 13 may also be committed by acts done outside the United Kingdom provided that, at the time of the act, the public office holder is either a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales. The clause ensures conduct like this could be caught by the new offences.
Dr Mullan
I want to make some brief points. I welcome the maximum sentences, which are clearer and in a more natural range, and there is not the uncertainty that I think we still have with the misleading the public offence.
I want to ask the Minister about the role of MPs, however, because she will know that our privilege to speak in the Chamber, including to make allegations of defamation, is unfettered. We can say things that do damage people’s reputations and that cause all sorts of issues, but we are immune from civil procedure. I am not sure how the common law has dealt with equivalent sorts of scenarios, but I can imagine an MP trashing the reputation of a business and that business going under, causing huge harm to an individual who then feels as though they should be able to have a say through this route.
I think we all agree that, although it can be abused, that privilege is really important to the operation of our democracy. Even if not now—the Minister may not have considered this before—it would be helpful to have a written note on the Department’s view about the potential misuse of that privilege to say whatever we want in Parliament, without restriction.
Dr Mullan
This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach.
I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge?
I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial.
Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for those questions. On who will police the spend, it will not be for the coroner to police it; it will be for the public bodies themselves. They will be under an obligation, because they will also be funding the legal aid for the bereaved families, depending on which public authority or arm of government it comes under. If it is health, for example, that Department will fund the legal aid costs of the bereaved families; if it is the Prison Service, the funding will come from the Ministry of Justice; if it is police, it will be the Home Office, and so on.
Alex Davies-Jones
No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is bang on the money, literally. I cannot tell her how frustrating it has been as a Minister trying to figure out a way forward on this—trying to figure out the cost to the public purse and the taxpayer—when we do not have that data. This will enable us to have the data on exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and Government Departments on legal aid.
This is taxpayers’ money. We heard evidence from the bereaved families that one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for them was that they as taxpayers were funding the legal support for the public authorities that were accused of having a hand in the death of their loved one. That is totally perverse and unacceptable.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that point. We have put new powers in the Bill for the coroner to challenge public authorities if they are acting inappropriately. What they bring forward has to be proportionate and reasonable. There are powers on the coroners there. They have to compile a report and complain to the relevant bodies or those individuals with the power to take action against the public authority for not acting in accordance with the guidance set out by the Lord Chancellor or the provisions in the Bill.
Dr Mullan
But that is kind of circular, because it takes us back to the coroners. Are the coroners in a position to do that? It is not something they have to do at the minute. As we heard in evidence, judges do that—it is part and parcel of their work—but it is not part of what coroners do. What are we doing in terms of support, information and guidance, and then monitoring that they actually do it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have a very close working relationship with the chief coroner, as the hon. Member would probably expect given my role. We work together very closely, and we have had significant conversations about how to work together going forward and about the implementation of the Bill, which will be crucial to its effectiveness. It is important to recognise that coroners, although distinct in their nature, are the judiciary. They are independent and they do have relevant expertise in this regard. I will be working closely with the chief coroner on implementation.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member heard what I said about annual reporting, but any experiences of a public authority failing to abide by the coroner’s instructions will have to be put into the annual report that the chief coroner will provide to the Lord Chancellor—all of this has to be captured—and we will not hesitate to name and shame those who are failing to abide by the duties in the Bill.
Ian Byrne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston cannot be here to move the motion because of her father’s illness. She really wanted to be here, and I fully support the new clause, so I am going to speak on her behalf.
New clause 1 proposes a post-legislative assessment, within 12 months of the passing of the Act, of how its provisions on the duty of candour and equality of arms are increasing public confidence in public authorities. Specifically, it would examine whether the internal processes of public authorities are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures as they first arise after major incidents. The assessment would also consider the role of the independent public advocate in evaluating how public authorities respond to affected individuals and bereaved families following such incidents.
The report would have to explore whether the powers of the independent public advocate should be extended to facilitate the gathering of information to support inquiries and investigations, to ensure that public authorities and officials act in accordance with the duty of candour. It would also have to examine the case for empowering the independent public advocate to instigate an independent panel, similar to the Hillsborough independent panel, and assess the costs compared with non-statutory and statutory inquiries.
The new clause would ensure that, soon after the Act comes into force, Parliament would receive a clear, evidence-based assessment of whether it is delivering on its aims, and whether the role of the independent public advocate should be strengthened to secure faster truth, greater transparency, and better support for bereaved families after major incidents.
When Hillsborough Law Now launched in 2022, it not only supported the measures in the Bill but called for the establishment of an independent public advocate with powers to set up independent panels like the Hillsborough independent panel. For more than two decades, the legal system failed to deliver truth or justice to the Hillsborough families. In some cases, it even facilitated the propagation of a false narrative, including by officers named in the IOPC report published this week.
It was the Hillsborough independent panel, which was established in 2009 and reported in 2012, that finally set the record straight. I wholeheartedly support that statement. Its process was non-legal, document-based and grounded in transparency rather than adversarial proceedings. In two years it achieved what the legal system had failed to do in 24. One of the key lessons of Hillsborough is that the legal system can fail. The two witnesses, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, spoke powerfully on behalf of this new clause, and the need to look at how panels in the style of the Hillsborough independent panel can help to achieve justice. I want to put on record that I thought they spoke really eloquently. We cannot claim to have learned the lessons fully unless we provide bereaved families with access to a similar process at an earlier stage.
The Public Advocate Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston in the Commons in 2016 and by Lord Wills in the Lords in 2014, set out to create an independent public advocate with meaningful powers, including the authority to instigate independent panels akin to the Hillsborough independent panel. The intention was to give bereaved families a route to truth and transparency at an early stage, and to ensure that public authorities could be held to account quickly and that failures in process could be addressed before they became entrenched.
However, the office of the independent public advocate, as currently established under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, does not yet carry the powers originally envisaged, as the independent public advocate outlined in last Thursday’s evidence session. I think she is open to having more powers to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston is looking to set out with the new clause. As it stands, the office of the IPA lacks the statutory authority to gather evidence from those affected, and it cannot initiate independent panels to collate information and assess public authorities’ actions.
I cannot say it strongly enough: the Hillsborough independent panel uncovered what happened at Hillsborough because it had access to the police documents and the reports, so it could see the scale of how some police officers had changed the evidence of those who were at Hillsborough. I include in that my own father, whose report of his experience at Hillsborough was changed beyond all recognition. When he eventually saw what the police had put down for him, it caused him great distress, along with many others. What my right hon. Friend has outlined in the new clause is so important, and without the powers in it the advocate cannot replicate the approach that finally succeeded in the case of Hillsborough, when transparency, document disclosure and independent oversight finally brought truth, in a fraction of the time that the legal system had taken.
The gap in the powers has real consequences today for families who experience disasters or major public incidents. If we are serious about learning the lessons from Hillsborough and other tragedies, which I believe we are, we need to ensure that the independent public advocate has the appropriate authority and resources to act effectively, and that Parliament can scrutinise whether the office is delivering on its intended purpose. New clause 1 would provide for that, and I support it fully. I urge the Minister to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston laid out in the new clause, and to discuss how we move forward on it.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of some of the sentiment and principle of the new clause, particularly subsection (1)(a) on understanding the impact of the provisions. As discussed, some of this is very novel and we will not always be sure how it pans out. I am not necessarily convinced that “within 12 months” is the right timescale. Thankfully, these things do not happen that often, in the scheme of things, and I am not sure that 12 months is quite enough time to see whether the new system has bedded in, and for there to be examples that we can review. I do not support the timetable, then, but it is important that the Government have a clear strategy for assessing and understanding how everything works in practice.
Tessa Munt
I have to disagree a little with the hon. Gentleman. A year is probably a good time in which one can make an initial assessment. We can then recognise what is happening on an annual basis.
With reference to our earlier discussion, might the Minister consider the annual report be the appropriate vehicle to look at what is spent on legal fees, and how that might reduce or increase? It will probably not increase. I believe the IOPC spent £80 million in the span of time for which it considered Hillsborough. If we get the new system right, sums like that £80 million will be reduced to very little, because the IOPC will be able to do its job swiftly and accurately, and to inform the Minister exactly what it has saved out of that £80 million pot, which was ridiculous.
Criminal Court Reform
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman knows that the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Justice Secretary Michael Gove asked me to conduct the Lammy review. In that review, I recommended that training, which was not happening in the way it should, should happen, and it is now happening. I was concerned about the diversity of our judiciary and our magistracy. That has improved, but there is more to do. In London, for example, 31% of our magistrates are now from an ethnic minority background. It is also important that, with the changes we are making, we will now get a judge’s reasoning, which lawyers such as those on the Back Benches can challenge. Where we have a jury, we do not get the reasoning, which I think is important as we look at issues of accountability.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the questioning, the Justice Secretary referred to the Victims’ Commissioner supporting these proposals. For the record, will he make it clear that, sadly, the Victims’ Commissioner passed away a number of weeks ago and cannot possibly have seen these proposals? He may have been referring to the incoming Victims’ Commissioner, who starts in January, but the statement she has released today makes no reference to the Justice Secretary’s proposals on changes to jury trials. I wonder if he might have inadvertently misled the House about that.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)
Kieran Mullan ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(2 months, 1 week 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.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Kieran Mullan ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(2 months, 1 week 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.