Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the speech I am going to give this evening is one I wish I did not have to and did not feel obliged to. I am going to deal with elements of the Bill and the debate which relate to what the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raised originally but have been covered by many other noble Lords in different parts of the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the question of whistleblowing. It is how you establish the process of candour at a lower level within any part of public service, because the reality is that this Bill should never have been necessary in the first place.

The two cases I will cite are examples of how, at a much lower level, things go wrong but people believe they can cover things up. I am in the fortunate position in the first example of being able to say that I have followed the processes in both cases. In the first case, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, was present when I was with officials only a few months ago saying, “Will you please answer the questions which I have been raising for four years?” Four years ago, I introduced the Ballot Secrecy Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, advised me that I should seek counsel’s opinion through the Electoral Commission, which they and I did.

Counsel’s opinion was provided in August 2022. I have a copy of it here. Only one other organisation was provided with a copy: the officials handling the Ballot Secrecy Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, touched on the matter earlier in relation to advice to Ministers. A whistleblower provided me with a copy of the advice given to Ministers on 29 September 2022, a month after counsel’s opinion had been provided to the Electoral Commission, me and the officials in the department. What did the advice from the officials say to the Minister? It said:

“The Electoral Commission have obtained Counsel’s advice to seek to bring clarity on this issue”—


whether legislation was necessary or not—

“and have shared it with Lord Hayward”.

They conveniently omitted the fact that they had had the advice, which I have established. I asked to meet officials over and over again. I asked questions in statutory instrument debates. I never got a reply.

The advice goes on to say:

“We have been given some headline information”.


They had not been given “some headline information”; they had been given a full copy of counsel’s opinion.

Only a few weeks ago, as I indicated, I made another effort, and during the recess, I communicated with the current Minister’s officials to say that I was going to raise this. That is precisely what we are facing here and what, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and others have identified, we should not have to be dealing with. It is the belief that people at a lower level will give up in the end. I have been looking round the Chamber and thinking, “How many of us as Members of Parliament dealt with cases when we did not believe the officials that we were dealing with, but there was just no way of finding a solution?”

In this case, what I find interesting about this ministerial advice is that there is no name at the bottom. There are loads of names of those on the write-round who will receive it, but there is no signature. I recommend that all advice to Ministers should be signed off by one official, because that would make that person responsible for the duty of candour.

The other example, sadly, is even closer to home, or “It couldn’t happen here”. A number of noble Lords will remember that I pursued over a long period the cost of traffic marshals, which involved millions of pounds. I notice one noble Baroness nodding, because she sat through my evidence to the Finance Committee: I will come back to that in a minute. I was seeking to establish how much money we were wasting on the traffic marshals, who are not legally required. As I explained to the Finance Committee, I was director of safety in a major industrial establishment employing 3,500 people and knew what the legal responsibilities were. On 6 December 2023, having asked for the cost of traffic marshals, the figure was given to me in an email from officials in this building: a traffic marshal would cost £65,613.50.

I told the officials, out of courtesy, that I was putting down a Question and would be drawing the answer, which I expected to be that, to the attention of the press. A few days later, I went to a meeting with officials and was told, “Oh, no, it’s not possible to calculate it”. I said, “Well, how was it possible to send me an email giving me a sum?” I was told, “Oh, no, it’s not possible”. I said, “Well, have I misphrased the Written Question?” I was told, “Oh, no, it’s not possible”. As far as I was concerned, that was a clear attempt to hide embarrassing data from the public eye because we were costing the nation millions. I was told it was not possible, but I waited. Fifteen months later, in a paper given to the Finance Committee, the cost of each individual marshal was identified. We have to ask ourselves: even within our own organisations, do we actually demand a duty of candour adequately?

Humanist Weddings

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I can do better than to quote from the Law Commission report, which looked specifically at this issue. It said that it would be anomalous and unfair to privilege these non-religious belief organisations over religious groups, which are subject to greater legal regulation. In particular, it would be very difficult to justify why the fewest restrictions should be applied to the newest categories. It is for that reason that the Government are not going to use the order-making power to single out humanists.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, a few years ago, despite major constitutional issues, a Labour MP in the other place, and I in this place, were able to steer same-sex marriage legislation through in relation to Northern Ireland in a very short time. When there is agreement on all sides, as there is here, why cannot we get the legislation through as quickly as we did a few years ago?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The answer to that is that there is not agreement on all sides as to what this should look like. I mentioned earlier the Law Commission’s report; its conclusions were greeted with some reservation by the humanists and the Church of England, while being widely welcomed by other groups. We absolutely need to make sure that we get this right and that we do not, in solving one set of inequalities, create some more.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the checklist is important. It may sound like a basic process but it is vital. At the moment, it is a combination of paperwork and computers. It is about inputting data, but one of the problems is that there are lots of opportunities to input the wrong data. For example, a number of prisoners arrive to us with different aliases. How do we manage that? It is a process of simplifying everything, simplifying the checklist, digitising as much as we can, using AI and other technology wherever possible, but also listening to the staff on the front line who are doing this job. This should not be a change driven by head office; it needs to be after careful thought and discussion with those who do the job day in, day out.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, in my PNQ on Monday, I asked the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, two questions. He was then reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that he had not answered one of the two questions. Much of this discussion has related to moving away from a paper-driven system to something with more technology. The Minister answered the noble Lord, Lord Young, by saying that he would write to him and to me, giving details of the timing when officials were first notified of the accidental release. I suggest he moves away from the paper-driven solution he suggested at the time of writing to me by asking his officials to send me an email or by picking up a phone, because as yet I have not received any response.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for speaking to me after the debate a couple of days ago. He quite rightly asked me to phone him. I will phone him as soon as I have that correct information. I am very aware of the need—I get told this regularly by officials—to make sure that I get it 100% right.

Accidental Prison Releases

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hayward]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent accidental prison releases.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, any release in error is one too many. Releases in error have been increasing for years and are another symptom of the justice system crisis inherited by this Government. The Ministry of Justice has already taken immediate steps, including introducing stronger release checks with more direct senior accountability, commissioning an independent review to tackle this issue, which has persisted for too long, and deploying a digital rapid response unit to all prisons to modernise release processes.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, for the absence of doubt, I am asking the Question in relation to Mr Brahim Kaddour-Cherif. Can the Minister please identify a timeline of, first, when officials were first notified of the accidental release of this gentleman, and, secondly, when the Secretary of State was first notified of his accidental release?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Both the Deputy Prime Minister and me were informed first thing on Wednesday morning when we woke up. The Deputy Prime Minister quite rightly thought it was irresponsible to potentially give incorrect information to Parliament. The information was changing rapidly and the Deputy Prime Minister did not want to mislead Parliament without all the details.

European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the Equality Act and protected characteristics. Could he give any indication of whether the intention of the Government is to extend the number of categories of protected characteristics? I have in mind care leavers as an example. There is a substantial amount of pressure that they should be included as one of the protected characteristics.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I am not aware of any government initiative to extend the number of protected characteristics. If I am mistaken on that, I will write to the noble Lord.