Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kieran Mullan and Joe Powell

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

Q But potentially?

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

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

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

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

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