Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Seamus Logan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

This Bill certainly is long overdue. I previously contributed to the excellent debate in Westminster Hall that was secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who has just made another fantastic contribution to the campaign. He has been a tireless campaigner for justice since the disaster in 1989.

The Scottish National party supports the Bill and we will work with the UK Government to change the culture of secrecy and cover-up, which for far too long has characterised too much of our public life. Scotland and the rest of the UK are well served by the exceptional dedication and commitment of our public officials, who work every day to keep our communities safe. However, it is right that we should be able to trust that those who serve in a public role fulfil very high standards of behaviour and conduct throughout their careers.

The sad reality is that when these failures were discovered, far too often the wagons were circled, rather than good-faith efforts being made to provide transparency and justice. So often in my own career in health and social care, I witnessed public bodies and senior executives responding to adverse events in defensive ways, declining to offer apologies to avoid financial cost and seeking to hide the truth to protect careers. But the buck stops in this place ultimately.

To reiterate, the SNP Scottish Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill and have been engaging closely with the UK Government on this legislation, including on how it may be extended to Scotland and which Scottish legislation will require amendment. If so, a legislative consent motion will be presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. In the meantime, public servants are, of course, expected to continue to follow all existing codes, and professional and legal obligations, until the Bill is fully implemented. The SNP Scottish Government have already taken legislative steps to introduce a duty of candour in areas of public life in Scotland, but this Bill must now be the catalyst to change organisational culture across these islands for good.

I fully agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the Bill would benefit from the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. That has to be one of the outcomes of the eventual passing of this legislation. We fully support the measures dealing with enforcement and compliance, but the key question is: when will we see an end to cover-up, denial, obfuscation and defensiveness? This law must extend not only to intelligence services, but their individual officers. It must make it clear that there is a single, clear point of accountability for chief executives of public bodies and other leaders with command responsibilities. Some legal experts believe that the Bill’s wording on that may be weak, and there is a case for reviewing and strengthening this part of the Bill.

We welcome the proposed code of ethical conduct, and the extension of the law to private bodies with public service health and safety responsibilities. Clause 5 allows for a prison sentence of up to two years for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour. That could be unduly lenient when one considers some of the more serious scandals.

The inclusion of the concept of “victim harm” in clause 11 may not be as helpful as it sounds, as it would potentially exclude those who, for example, simply falsify statistics, for whatever reason, and are not directly creating any specific victims. That wording could be reviewed. We welcome the commitment to equality of arms in court proceedings, and to ensuring that victims and their families have full recourse to legal aid. In the past, the absence of public funding has too often been an insurmountable obstacle.

On a further matter of detail, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, the Bill makes no reference to newspapers or other media outlets, some of which were up to their necks in law breaking, as demonstrated by the Leveson inquiry. As hon. Members will know, Leveson 2 was meant to investigate the relationship between the press and the police, but it was cancelled by the Cameron Government. As a result, there is little or no accountability in this area. There is still deep hurt in Liverpool at the conduct of some editorial staff and journalists at The Sun newspaper all those years ago. There are other examples of misconduct and even law breaking. Will the Bill provide some solutions relevant to the media? If not, how do the Government intend to address this issue?

I alluded at the outset to devolved matters. There is a clear need to work proactively with devolved Administrations on legal provisions that will require amendment. There have been so many examples in recent times of an utter failure to consult, liaise or communicate with the devolved Administrations, but that cannot happen in this instance. I hope that we will see maximum co-operation on these matters. My party and I stand ready to make a constructive contribution as this Bill passes on to its next stages.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

Q The Bill seeks to deal with these things by having proper equal legal representation, which is a good thing in my view. Do you think it is enough? Again, it was the Hillsborough independent panel, a non-legal process, that finally got to the truth. All the legal actions that had taken place before it did not achieve that. What role do you think there is for panel-like arrangements?

Pete Weatherby: I think there is a huge role, and there is a discretion within the Government Bill to extend the duty of candour to panels. We would like that to be stronger—that would be great. Of course, there is no one size fits all. As somebody who has been involved in many public inquiries, I have a major criticism of the length of them. The duty of candour will scythe down the length of public inquiries, if it is used properly. Yes, there is an extension of legal aid in the Bill, but it will be dwarfed by the amount of money that will be saved if the duty of candour is used appropriately and properly.

On your point, absolutely, there is a huge role. I have been on panels myself, and it definitely is not a one size fits all. Internationally, there is learning about this. The best example is probably New Zealand, where there is a smorgasbord of different processes.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Q Thank you for your evidence so far, Mr Weatherby. Notwithstanding the force of the command responsibility amendment that you have told us about, would you see an additional or bolstering role for the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament, in addition to the recommendations that you are making?

Pete Weatherby: Yes, I think that would be a sensible additional measure. I think the measure that we put forward in the briefing would, in a practical and effective way, do what we are setting out to achieve, but the more oversight that can be provided, the better. The ISC is well placed to do that and therefore it would be an additional safeguard. I cannot speak for everybody on that, because I have not seen an amendment in time, but it sounds like a very sensible suggestion.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

Q It is good to speak to you, Peter. I have a couple of quick points after what we listened to last week when we went to visit the security services; this was raised, and I would like your opinion on it. First, will anything in the Bill compromise the UK’s intelligence sharing with its partners? Secondly—we have come a long way to get here today, and I just want a definitive answer to a blunt question, because we really only have one shot at this—in its present format, would the Bill prevent a Hillsborough-style cover-up? I know that you just alluded to this with Maria, but I want a definitive answer on the record.

Pete Weatherby: I think that if the amendments that we are putting forward were made, it would be almost impossible for a Hillsborough-style cover-up to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Q This question is for Mr Guest. What legitimate reasons might a body have for not complying with the duty of candour? Can you think of any examples?

Tom Guest: That is one of the tests that we have tried to look at when we have been looking at the draft provisions. First of all, there is not a freestanding defence to the duty of candour—there is no reasonable excuse or anything like that—so the Bill is tightly drawn in that respect. There are also no viable defences elsewhere in criminal law that we can see, so the duty of candour is very tightly drawn to be complied with.

The one point that is important to draw attention to, in the interests of transparency and frankness, is clause 3(7), which makes it clear that

“The duty of candour…does not require a public authority…to breach any prohibition or restriction imposed by”

an Act of Parliament

“or a rule of law”.

When I say it is tightly drawn, it is not open ended. The public authority has to point to an actual Act of Parliament or a rule of law where the duty of candour does not require it to breach a prohibition or restriction. That is the one thing we wanted to draw to your attention, but otherwise there are no freestanding, wider reasons why public authorities cannot comply.

[Seamus Logan]

Q This question is for Mr Guest. For a member of the public like me, could you draw out the difference between what you would regard legally as “seriously improper” conduct and simply improper conduct? What I am trying to get at are examples such as someone who does not draw attention to a computer program that is clearly flawed; someone who decides not to tell anyone about a medical product that is harmful; or a situation in which there is a large-scale loss of life. For a member of the public, what is the difference between improper and seriously improper?

Tom Guest: Just to make it clear, you are talking about the clause 11 offence, because the clause 12 misconduct offence also uses the words “seriously improper”. I will take the examples you have given to be referring to the offence of misleading the public.

The advantage of the Bill is that it clearly sets a standard for a jury to apply. Every jury is going to have to look at the specific evidence in the case. What did the suspects know? What were they withholding? What means did they take? What did they know at the time? Was it in the heat of the moment? The jury must consider all the evidence, and it is not possible to cater for all the different factual scenarios that might apply. The advantage, though, is that you have clearly set out in the Bill a standard set of considerations for a juror to apply, and they are clearly directed at setting a threshold between improper and seriously improper. Clause 11(3) is about as clear as you can get when you bear in mind that it has to apply to all kinds of potential factual scenarios; it is clearly set out there how to apply that assessment of seriously improper.

[Seamus Logan]

To be clear, it depends.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q Professor Lewis, you spoke about the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Have I understood correctly that if someone puts forward the defence of reasonable excuse—I think this is the phrasing—it would then be for the prosecution to prove that it was false rather than for the defendant to prove that it was true?

Professor Lewis: Yes. I would phrase it slightly differently: I would say that the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse, rather than thinking about truth or falsity. But, yes, once the defendant introduces evidence that raises the defence of reasonable excuse, they will have met their evidential burden, and the persuasive or legal burden will then rest on the prosecution.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tessa Munt]

The Minister has made her points. I am hopeful that we will end up with those reassurances. We will pick up these points later in the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a public authority or public official is under an obligation to respond to or assist an inquiry or investigation under subsection (4) they should do so within 30 working days.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, after “expeditiously” insert

“and within 30 working days”.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

and insert “within 30 working days”.

[Seamus Logan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I have a number of confessions to make. First of all, this is my first Bill Committee in my 18 months as a Member, so I am a complete novice in terms of how these procedures work—I will be guided by the Chair at all times, of course. Secondly, I am afraid that my office has been decimated by illness, so I am flying blind this morning on some of the details of these amendments. I would be grateful if one of the Clerks could provide me with a hard copy of the amendments under consideration, if possible—actually, I am sure I can get one from the table.

I welcome the Minister’s statement about working together in a collegiate way to try to ensure that the Bill is as strong as it possibly can be. I am very conscious of the evidence that we heard last week and the strength of feeling about the Bill among those affected by not only the Hillsborough tragedy, but the many different tragedies and inquiries that have occurred over the years. That is why we tabled our amendments in a collegiate way to try to strengthen the Bill. That includes these amendments, which, as I understand them—though I am flying blind—seek to replace rather loose wording with a more specific timescale. I have no prior experience of other Bills to go on, but as a mental health officer in a previous life, I know how vital it is to understand the timescales that apply to the duties that fall upon public bodies. The Bill at present—[Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston for bailing me out by providing me with a copy of the amendments.

The current language of the Bill is imprecise. Whenever a duty is placed upon a public authority to perform a certain duty, the legislation should specify a timescale. Notwithstanding the Minister’s advice as to how things might progress with these amendments, we have suggested a timescale of 30 days. That may not be operationally possible—I am happy to consider extending it if that is what the Minister decides—but we believe that this amendment would significantly strengthen the duty on public authorities to operationalise this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

At the heart of the Bill is the demand that public officials must speak the truth and serve the public, not their own reputations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Seamus Logan]

I welcome the Minister’s response. Having heard what she said about working with me about how we might operationalise the issue, I am prepared to withdraw the amendments. However, it is important to remember, in that conversation, that justice delayed is justice denied.

We have seen so many examples of inquiries and investigations that take years, when months would be much more appropriate. In the circumstances we are speaking about—in this case and the many others that this law will apply to—we must give chairs and leaders of inquiries and investigations some sense of what is reasonable when it comes to public authority responses.

We heard from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale about the health service; I worked in it for 33 years. There is no good reason why it should not be able to respond in if not 30 then 90 days. Some backstop needs to be applied in relation to these responsibilities. I am happy to continue the conversation with the Minister and beg to ask leave withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Application of duty of candour and assistance

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 25, line 23, leave out from “direction” to the end of the sub-paragraph and insert

“should be given to a public official working for an intelligence service or the head of such a service pursuant to section 2(4) and section 2(5) of the Public Office (Accountability) Act 2025 as applicable to any other public authority, but may not be given to any other public official if it would require the official to provide information relating to security or intelligence, within the meaning of section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, and any such public official is not required to provide any such information in response to a direction given in breach of this sub-paragraph.”

See Amendment 38.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 3 works alongside clause 2 in making some more detailed provisions about the operation of the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations to ensure that they are practical, effective and proportionate. Clause 3(2) provides important flexibility for inquiries and investigations to alter or disapply the requirement for public officials and authorities to notify the inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe they are relevant.

There may be situations where the requirement would be impractical or unhelpful for the inquiry itself. Clearly, it would have been impractical for every single NHS worker involved in the response to the pandemic to notify the covid-19 inquiry of their possible relevance, or an inquiry may wish to hear from those relevant to different subjects at different times and in different stages. Clause 3(3) reinforces clause 2 by requiring public officials and authorities to notify inquiries and investigations of their potential relevance as soon as is reasonably practicable. Subsections (4), (5), and (6) attach some procedure to the duty to make it practical, which schedule 1 builds on.

Inquiries and investigations will specify the assistance they require and what are called compliance directions in schedule 1. These give control to the inquiry or investigation to set out the assistance they actually require, and provide important clarity for those under the duty, so they know exactly what is expected of them. Clause 2 sets an expectation that public authorities will provide a position statement at inquiries. Such statements, made early on in proceedings can help inquiries to identify the key issues to investigate and to home in on the points of contention. In most cases, we expect these to be useful, but subsections (5) and (6) give inquiries the discretion to disapply that requirement if it would be contrary to the efficiency and effectiveness of the inquiry.

[Seamus Logan]

Could the Minister give an example to the Committee of such a circumstance?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes, of course. I have mentioned the covid-19 inquiry—it would have been impractical for every single worker to come forward to an inquiry—but I add that the chair of an inquiry must give reasons, publishing them and outlining why it would not be practical, or not helpful to the inquiry, not to bring forward a position statement.

Subsection (7) is vital to ensure that the duty of candour does not cut across existing laws, such as those on data protection or safeguarding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Extension of duty to other persons with public responsibilities

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot envisage a circumstance where clause 2(5) would be enforced. All reasonable steps could include deferring to the authority lawyers or senior leadership teams.

We have seen exactly this example in the Kerslake inquiry following the Manchester Arena attack, where the former chief constable of Greater Manchester provided a false narrative regarding the police response. At the subsequent public inquiry, he accepted he had made a grave error but still blamed the senior leadership team and lawyers. It is unlikely that he would have risked misleading said inquiry if he had command responsibility, which goes to the absolute heart of this legislation.

Section 3 extends clauses 5 and 11 offences to officers within authorities, such as managers who deal with particular investigations or statements, but only when they can be identified as the wrongdoers. It is a welcome provision, but it is only complementary to command responsibility. It would catch all those contemplating a cover-up lower down the authority, but it does not impose command responsibility on those at the top. We saw that with the evidence last week with regard to the NHS. Healthcare regulations have been pretty ineffective in this regard, partly because enforcement applies only to the organisations, and not the command. That lies right at the heart of the Bill.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. Member is making an important point, but am I right in thinking that his motivation—and the motivation of many people in this area—is about getting to the truth, rather than punishing people?

[Ian Byrne]

Absolutely. Many of us here have experience trying to get to the truth. What we tried to do will be highlighted in the Independent Office for Police Conduct report. Unfortunately, the people who should have been punished will not be punished, but that is a story for another day, I suppose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank all hon. Members for tabling these amendments and for today’s debate. As we heard on Thursday, command responsibility is a priority for change and accountability, and I therefore hope I will be able to provide further clarity as to how our Bill ensures clear accountability right at the top. Hillsborough families were clear that there must be individual accountability, with those who have engaged in state cover-ups held responsible. Our Bill clearly delivers that.

Any individual who commits a duty of candour offence can be prosecuted. That includes chief executives or the equivalent. If a public authority breaches its duty of candour or misleads the public, anyone in a management position who consented or connived with that breach can also be prosecuted. As such, amendment 27 would duplicate the provisions in schedule 3(3). Given that clarification, I ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.

Our Bill is consistent with the approach taken in other legislation, including the Bribery Act 2010 and the Fraud Act 2006, where personal liability for offences committed by a corporate body relies on consent or connivance. Anyone in charge of a public authority has a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their authority complies with the duty of candour and assistance. If they fail to do so, they will face prosecution.

Amendments 33, 34, 44 and 45 would hold the chief executive personally responsible for offences committed by the public authority even if they did not have knowledge of the offence being committed, and even if—in the case of amendments 33 and 44—they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the organisation’s compliance with the duty of candour. We do not believe that that is the intention of the amendments, and we do not think it fair to attach criminal responsibility in that way. We intend the duties to apply widely. For example, we plan to extend the duty of candour and assistance to NHS investigations. It would not be reasonable or realistic to expect the chief executive of an NHS trust to be across every single detail of every response in any investigation into an incident at that trust. Instead, we would expect them to have systems in place to ensure that the authority is complying, which is precisely what the Bill requires them to do.

[Seamus Logan]

To build on my point to the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, the issue here is that the criminal responsibility focuses the mind of the person with command responsibility. It requires that person—the chief executive or otherwise—to ensure full compliance. That is the point.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree. I am absolutely reassured that the Bill, as drafted, does just that. It ensures that there is criminal liability on the head of a public authority to ensure that everything is covered. However, as I have already stated, when something goes wrong in an NHS setting and we know that something has gone wrong but are unable to find out exactly what, despite the head of that NHS trust having all the procedures in place for applying the duty of candour, it would not be fair or reasonable to put criminal sanctions on the head of that NHS executive.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

I thank my right hon. Friend for outlining that beautifully. It goes to the heart of where we are now. As I said, we are watching a live example of why this matter is so fundamental to the Bill, and how effective it will be. I urge the Minister to listen to those concerns and work with us.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Earlier, I asked the Minister for an example and she pointed to the national health service. I think that was a fair point, but not every issue here relates to a complicated organisation like an NHS trust, where the chief executive has senior clinicians who have clinical responsibilities that perhaps outweigh the managerial responsibilities of the chief executive. The Minister rightly pointed to paragraph 3 of schedule 3, backing up the point that she was making, and I accept that, but the difficulty with that paragraph, and the way the Bill is currently written, is that it puts the responsibility initially on the body. The point that has been made to me by folk like those at the Hillsborough Law Now group is that that will allow someone—a chief executive, chief inspector or whoever—simply to say, “I didn’t have the knowledge because X or Y didn’t tell me about it.” The proposed amendment would very clearly put the command responsibility on the chief executive or the leading officer.

[Ian Byrne]

I think the Minister can hear the concern from Members on both sides of the Committee that this will not be as effective if there is no individual responsibility, and if those who have done wrong can hide behind the corporate wall and ride off into the sunset with their full pensions, with no accountability or justice. Once the Minister listens to the evidence, and certainly the response of the families today, hopefully we can reflect on whether we feel this is a loophole that could be utilised by those who are responsible. It is our responsibility in this place to shut that down. I hope the Minister will listen to and reflect on what we have said today, and meet me after this sitting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where an obligation to give notification would have arisen under section 2(3), save for the exemptions in subsection (2), the head of the relevant intelligence service must provide a written notification to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament summarising the acts that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation.”

This amendment aims to provide accountability for intelligence services and their operations in relation to the duty of candour and its exemptions from them.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 39, in schedule 2, page 41, line 14, at end insert—

“(ja) the intelligence services, or”.

Amendment 40, in schedule 2, page 43, line 31, at end insert—

“(ia) the intelligence services, or”.

Amendments 39 and 40 would add the intelligence services to the lists of public authorities in Schedule 2 for the purpose of defining “public authority” in relation to this Bill.

[Seamus Logan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We have had an excellent debate on command responsibility, and I am heartened to see a very positive outcome from that discussion.

Clause 6 is separate and distinct because it applies to the intelligence services. We heard evidence about the provisions in clause 6 in the evidence session, as well as at a useful special meeting that some Committee members attended with two heads and a deputy head of the three intelligence services. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the evidence from that special meeting and the evidence session has highlighted that there are potentially some contradictory views. Nevertheless, my problem with clause 6(2)(a) is that it is basically a get-out clause; it allows the head of an intelligence service to opt out of the overall duty of candour where that would, according to the Bill, contravene the Official Secrets Act 1989.

I understand that there are special circumstances regarding the intelligence services, as was ably described to us by Sir Ken McCallum, when he said, “I don’t know who all my agents are, and I am not sure that I know all of their activities.” That is fair enough; one can readily understand why that might be the case. Nevertheless, there should be no overall escape clause for the intelligence services. Having said that, I understand that there will be circumstances in which it is necessary to maintain secrecy about certain aspects of what the intelligence services do.

My amendment would give a role to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a Committee of the House, by requiring the head of an intelligence service, in these specific circumstances, to make a report to the ISC on what the exception is. In even more exceptional circumstances, I understand that the ISC can also communicate with the Prime Minister alone—it has no obligation to do anything else.

I believe that that sensible mechanism would give us confidence, in drafting the Bill, that there is no get-out clause. Critically, it would also restore trust even within our intelligence community on how it operates. We do not need to go back over all the evidence that we heard from an employee of the BBC, for example. I hope the Minister can take on board the thrust of what I am saying in the amendment, and perhaps she can even see fit to endorse it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. I will respond to amendment 21 and the other amendments in turn, before moving to the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill.

As the hon. Gentleman stated, amendment 21 would ensure that when clause 2(3) of the duty applies to the intelligence services, the head of the intelligence service must give the Intelligence and Security Committee a summary of any relevant acts or information. The Government have taken his points on board, and we are actively considering options to be introduced on Report. I commit to continuing to engage with him, other Committee members and external stakeholders to make sure that we find a way forward that is fit for the Bill and fit for protecting national security.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for that. Given she has said that we will see an amendment on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Would anyone like to speak to the other amendment in the group?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Morrison]

I thank the Minister for her comments. In the spirit of cross-party working, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Seamus Logan]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 9, page 8, line 12, leave out “may” insert “must”.

I am aware that we have debated amendment 48, although perhaps not as fully as I would have liked. In the interests of getting our business done within the time available, I decided not to intervene in that debate. However, I believe that the particular change in amendment 24 is necessary. Where amendment 48 spoke to the duty of candour, amendment 24 speaks to the code of ethics.

There are legal minds in the room that are much better informed and trained on legal definitions than my own, but amendment 24 addresses the need to replace “may” with “must” in the code of ethics, as opposed to the duty of candour. I believe this is important given my experience in the health service, where there is a responsibility on individuals to report child abuse, or where a colleague might clearly be able to see that a surgeon carrying out procedures is repeatedly doing something injurious or harmful. By replacing the word “may” with “must”, we place a responsibility on anyone to blow the whistle on those particular issues.

In my working life I have experience, as might others present, of consultants who suppressed information relating to child abuse. We certainly heard similar evidence about surgeons during our evidence session. Colleagues will be able to think of many such examples, which is why it is important that the amendment replaces “may” with “must”.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. The Government believe it is imperative to have policies and processes in place to enable officials and public servants to speak up when they see that something is wrong. If we are to address the culture change that we have heard about a hundred times, it is important to have that in place. That is why the Bill requires all public authorities to set out how a person can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code, and the process for making a protected disclosure, also known as whistleblowing.

The amendment would require individuals to take a particular course of action. This risks cutting across established disciplinary and whistleblowing regimes, with potentially significant implications for employees. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working across Government with the Department for Business and Trade on how we reform whistleblowing more generally, and as the Bill progresses we will be looking quite carefully at whistleblowing and protections for individuals. However, we do not think the amendment would have the intended consequences, and it might cause us more issues, so I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw it.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for that response, but I am at a loss to know how the responsibility suggested by the amendment would cut across any existing code of ethical conduct. If the legislation simply stated that the person who works for the authority must take steps if they believe that another person who works for the authority has failed to act in accordance with the code, I fail to see how that would cut across any existing procedures. It would simply make the provision more robust by saying “You must take that step” rather than “You may take that step”. That is what the amendment calls for; perhaps the Minister might like to expand on why she wishes me to withdraw it.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman. Say, for example, that someone in the police force believes that a colleague is not acting in accordance with the code of ethics, but that individual may not be privy to the details of an undercover operation that their colleague is aware of and they are cutting across existing provisions in the police force. If that individual had to do as the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment, they could hinder the investigation or cause unintended consequences.

With the Bill, we are saying that there must be a way of reporting. Every public organisation must have that built in but, as we have discussed, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work across all public sector authorities. What will work in the NHS will not work in the police or for probation. This all has to fit the specific authority. Therefore, there has to be a mechanism for reporting, but we are not designating a specific one.

[Seamus Logan]

All I can say is—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is helpful. Perhaps when the Minister and I, and others, meet to discuss other matters, we might explore this in more detail. If the Minister is willing to accept that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to do that.

[Seamus Logan]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 9, page 8, line 15, leave out subsection and insert—

“(b) the making by any person of disclosures which are protected disclosures in terms of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or which would be such disclosures had they been made by a worker or employee, including information about any policies the authority has adopted in relation to the making of such disclosures;

(ba) the affording of enhanced protection to any persons making disclosures under paragraphs (a) or (b), including policies ensuring that those persons are not subjected to bullying, harassment or any other form of detriment in relation to the making of such disclosure;”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Seamus Logan, do you want to speak to amendment 22?

[Seamus Logan]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. Pursuant to the issues already outlined by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, amendment 22 is about affording enhanced protections. The main point I make to the Minister is this. If the existing protections actually worked, then why—as we heard in the evidence sessions—are so many people falling foul of whistleblowing provisions? Their careers can be blighted, and in some cases they lose their jobs. If the existing protections are sufficient, why is it necessary to consider making these amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right: the amendment should not say “conduct of conduct”, it should indeed say “codes of conduct”. I hope the Chair can note that, and forgive me for any confusion.

I am hoping—by misspelling everything—to promote clarity, uniformity and accessibility, making it easy for staff to understand their obligations and the processes for reporting wrongdoing. By standardising the minimum content in ethical codes, the amendment would strengthen accountability, support a culture of integrity and help to ensure that protections, such as those for whistleblowers, are applied effectively across all public authorities and organisations. I recognise that the Minister has spoken pretty strongly against doing this; none the less, I am seeking clarity. Having a minimum standard set by the Secretary of State might be helpful, but I recognise that the Minister has already had a good old go at saying no.

[Seamus Logan]

I rise to speak to amendment 23. The Minister will be aware that if the Bill is enacted, as we are all confident that it will be in due course, a large number of public authorities will face significant new training requirements. When we met with the intelligence services chair, Sir Ken McCallum, he readily acknowledged that there will be significant training implications for his organisation, and MI5 is quite small in the broader context, particularly if one thinks of the national health service, the civil service, the police, and so on.

The Minister has told me that the money resolution has already been passed, and there are no new additional resources attached to this Bill, other than in relation to legal aid—I think that is in the schedules. Amendment 23 seeks to ask the Minister to reconsider that in the light of what I have said about training needs. One only has to think of things such sexual harassment, equality training, and so on, and the massive training requirement that fell upon the public bodies many years ago. I was one of those who underwent that training. It was a significant training requirement, and I expect that the duty of candour and the code of ethics, and so on, will also have a major training requirement. With amendment 23, I am asking the Government to reconsider whether adequate funding is available to organisations to undertake the training that will follow from passing this Bill.

[The Chair]

Do you wish to speak to amendment 25?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

Amendment 25 has already been covered in our discussions about “may” or “must”, and I am happy to take that discussion into further meetings with the Minister.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank both hon. Members for tabling the amendments in this group; I will respond to each in turn.

First, amendment 28 would require there to be a standard template for a code of ethics. The Government recognise the importance of supporting public authorities to develop their codes of ethical conduct, and we commit to doing so. Clause 10 confers a power on the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments to issue guidance that authorities will be required to have regard to when drawing up codes for their organisations.

The newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission will in time also have a role in supporting public bodies by making toolkits, best practice and guidance available for public sector bodies. Although we envisage that standard templates will be useful, as I have already said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We wish to retain the flexibility to allow each individual organisation and sector to consider what would work best for them, but support will of course be available for them in doing so.

Amendment 25 would require a public authority to modify its code for specified circumstances or for specified people who work for the authority. I want to reassure Members that clause 9(7) provides for public authorities to specify that their code may apply with modifications in specified circumstances or to people of a specified description who work for the authority.

The intention of clause 9(7) is to enable authorities to reflect different expectations or obligations that apply to different groups of employees—for example, a school’s code of conduct may apply differently to teachers and janitorial staff. It could also reflect different processes that apply in different situations, for example, in an emergency situation compared with everyday business as usual. The Government’s view is that it should be for the authority to determine whether and how it uses that flexibility, noting that it must set out the reasons for doing so—that is important. We do not think that authorities should be required to do so, which is what the effect of amendment 25 would be.

Amendment 23 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate funding is available to public authorities to provide training to their officials on compliance with the code of ethical conduct. I again want to assure hon. and right hon. Members that the Government have an ambitious plan for the implementation of the Bill. The Bill is just one part of the puzzle; it needs to be implemented fully, workably and effectively. It is just part and start of the culture change that we want to see in public sector organisations. The plans will of course include training for public servants, as well as oversight of the codes themselves.

A number of public sector organisations are already working on cultural or leadership programmes, and implementation of the Bill may be undertaken alongside or as part of existing initiatives to ensure that the code is seen as central to driving change in the organisation’s culture on a sustainable basis. The Bill requires public authorities to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct among those who work for the authority. The duty ensures public authorities will be accountable, while allowing flexibility for the practical arrangements that each authority might put in place. I hope that assures the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, and I am happy to work with him and others on the implementation of the Bill as it goes forward.

Finally, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report setting out whether and how public authorities have complied with the duty of assistance and candour. The Government agree that it is essential that the duties in the Bill are properly upheld and enforced. That is why the Government are ensuring independent oversight of implementation of the Bill’s provisions. The Government have committed to commissioning an annual independent assessment report to ensure that public bodies are complaint with the codes of ethics requirement in the Bill. That report will make clear which parts of the public sector are rising to the challenge and which are failing to do so. We will not be afraid to name and shame who is abiding and who is not.

Compliance with the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations can, sadly, be judged only by the inquiry or investigation itself. They are responsible for monitoring compliance with the legal duty and for taking enforcement action, such as referring the case for criminal proceedings if necessary. I would like to assure all Committee members that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring effective implementation of all the measures in the Bill and to achieving the cultural change that is so desperately needed. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

In light of the Minister’s clarification, I am happy to withdraw amendment 25. However, with regard to amendment 23, I am still unclear as to what exactly the Minister is saying. Is she indicating that beyond the passage of the Bill there will be further clarifications to public bodies as to what training requirements there might be, and that resources will flow from that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman—but yes, essentially. We will need to look at how we implement the Bill once it becomes an Act—hopefully it will become an Act—and at the requirements that will come from that. I will happily have those discussions with him and every other public authority on how best we do that. Should other resources be needed, that is something that the Government will consider.

[Seamus Logan]

Given the proceedings today are a matter of record, I am happy to withdraw amendment 23.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

To ensure that public sector culture changes for the better, clause 9 introduces a new duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by people who work for the authority. This means acting in accordance with the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership.

Under the Bill, all public authorities will be required to adopt a code of ethical conduct. This will ensure comprehensive coverage across the public sector. It will not be enough to simply have a code; authorities will be legally required to publish their codes and take active steps to make their staff aware of the code, and the consequences of failing to comply with it.

Clause 9(4) and (5) set out minimum standards that all codes must meet. Each code must establish a professional duty of candour, and an expectation that those working for the authority will act with candour at all times. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the sectors to which they apply; they will be meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use an organisation’s services. The code must set out the practical ways in which ethical standards should be upheld and the disciplinary consequences of failing to act in accordance with the code. This will ensure that the code acts as an aspirational document, setting out best practice, but also as an effective deterrent against unethical behaviour.

Ensuring there are routes where individuals can raise concerns about public institutions is essential for ensuring that issues are identified and addressed as early as possible. Clause 9(5) requires an authority’s code to set out: how staff can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code; how staff can make protected disclosures, including any whistleblowing policies; and a clear process for external complaints about the conduct of the authority or those working for it.

Recognising the diversity of the public sector, the Bill includes some flexibilities. A code can provide for its standards to apply differently in specific circumstances or to specific groups of people, but it must set out reasons for doing so. For example, it may not be appropriate to apply all of the same standards to doctors as to the cleaning staff in an NHS trust. The Bill allows a public authority to adopt a code produced by another body. For example, schools can adopt a code published by the Department for Education, or local authorities can adopt codes from the Local Government Association. This is to ensure consistency across sectors and will minimise the burdens on smaller organisations. 

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Non-statutory inquiries

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

I want to reinforce what the hon. Lady said regarding the definition of journalism. It must be tightly defined to prevent the bogus defence that we have seen recently, as made by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—also known as Tommy Robinson. If the purpose of this exclusion is to exempt public service journalists—for example, those working at the BBC—from scope, then it should say that explicitly. There is no reason why it cannot say that. Otherwise, public officials and servants are not journalists, and there is no reason to exempt a lie asserted in the course of writing or broadcasting.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger. I rise to support the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and to draw attention to some examples of why the amendment is important. Members will be familiar with the hacking problem that we had some years ago. In fact, I think one journalist actually served a prison sentence in relation to that. There were many others who may or may not have been involved in that affair. Members will recall how the programme on the Post Office brought huge attention to that scandal and, in fact, led to a major review of the situation. A similar programme called “The Hack”, which may not have gathered as much attention, highlighted the vast extent of the problem of collusion between journalists and the police. Members will also recall that Leveson 2 was cancelled. Leveson 2 was, as I recall, designed to provide stronger regulation for journalism and the media in general. I think we should be concerned about this very sweeping exclusion for journalism, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

[Tessa Munt]

I want to put on record that I recognise that journalism has an important place in shedding light on various situations. I understand that, but I am concerned that this particular wording covers everything. I write journalistically every day of my life. I suspect that I have effectively written a whole bunch of journalism in my notes. I publish stuff from my notes, speeches that I make in Parliament and all sorts of things that could be considered journalism. I am going to plead with the Minister to find a way, maybe through discussions with Members, to contain the provision in some way so that we can keep the good—we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—and somehow define what it is that is actually meant by journalism. I wait to hear from the Minister on that.

[Tessa Munt]

It was a long one. I am sorry, Sir Roger.

[Seamus Logan]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play.

Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. 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. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.

[Seamus Logan]

Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them.

It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity.

In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.

Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Seamus Logan]

I may be misreading the evidence—if I am, I accept that—but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence given to us by Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller during the Committee’s second sitting, last Thursday afternoon. I came away from that sitting with a very distinct impression that those two witnesses were of the view that the legal aid system might need to be expanded. We find that view from Mr Minnoch, the chief executive of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, at columns 60 and 61. He seemed to suggest that his expectation was that legal aid would be expanded in this context.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We are expanding legal aid. The provision of non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at an inquest or inquiry where there is a public authority as an interested person is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.

[Seamus Logan]

That is fair enough, but the Minister stated earlier that there are no additional resources as a result of the application of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

That is correct. There is no new money for this; it has to be found out of existing Government Department budgets. This is in order to, as we have debated, figure out exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and by local government departments on legal aid and on their contribution to an inquest or an inquiry. We will be working with the legal aid providers very closely and we will be monitoring this, as I am sure will the Treasury, but that is the determination of this Bill and that is the mechanism by which we will be operating.

[Seamus Logan]

If I interpret the Minister correctly, what she is saying is that, through the application of the Bill, there may be a need to review the position in due course.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I can confirm that we are working very closely on a way forward on the framework for the legal aid mechanism of the Bill. I will happily update Members and the House as we progress on how that will be implemented, and we will be working with providers on that.

On the shadow Minister’s final point, about complex family relationships, we are alive to this issue and are working with organisations and officials to see how we can best approach it. We have made provision in the Bill for one advocate adviser per bereaved family, but we recognise that there are complex family arrangements, so there are provisions in the Bill for other family members or other interested people to make an application under LASPO to access more legal aid. However, we have heard the concerns raised in Committee, and we are looking to see what more we can do to support families.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Seamus Logan]

I rise to support the new clause, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. I believe this to be an important proposal. If the new clause is adopted, would it actually result in a saving to the public purse?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate on the new clause, which seeks to provide for a post-legislative review of the duty of candour and to include an assessment of the role of the Independent Public Advocate.

As the Committee knows, Cindy Butts has now started as the first ever standing advocate of the independent public advocate. Hers is an excellent appointment. Sadly, she has already been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack on Heaton Park synagogue. The IPA will bolster the support offer and amplify victims’ voices back to Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have been in direct contact with Cindy to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the delivery of her role and to better understand the experiences of victims.

Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the IPA has the power to produce reports, and has broad discretion on what matters relating to a major incident to include. Such reports may, for example, highlight concerns about a public authority not co-operating or not behaving with candour, or about the cost of what is entailed.

Additionally, the Act requires a statutory review of the independent public advocate’s role and its effectiveness, 18 months after its first deployment. That review period commenced on 3 October, following the attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The resulting report will be laid before Parliament, as required in legislation. It is right to allow the new role sufficient time to bed in. We will keep listening to victims’ experiences and will conduct the review before we consider any further changes. However, I am not taking those off the table—I reaffirm that commitment to the Committee.

The Prime Minister recently commissioned a new ethics and integrity commission to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes of ethics so that they effect meaningful cultural change and ensure that public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and when the Hillsborough law has received Royal Assent, the commission will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies to put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.