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.

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 (Second sitting)

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. Ian, come back with another question if you wish to, but let the witness finish.

Lord Evans of Weardale: Individual officers do give evidence. If you look, for example, at what is being done at the moment in respect of the case that you will be hearing about later—the Agent X case, as I think it is known—it is being investigated by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which has been completely clear that the service has a duty of candour in that context. I do not believe that the agency is trying to avoid frank and open accountability; I believe that it is trying to square that with the other constraints under which it operates, because of the sensitive nature of almost all the operation information that the service is using.

That is the dilemma, but I recognise that it is a dilemma. You can take different views, but I think you have to give due weight to ensuring safeguarding—not safeguarding the service because of reputation; we should not have a law that does that. What we need is a law that enables the full story to be disclosed, but in a way that allows the agencies to continue to undertake their public functions, and that is compatible with the other legal constraints with which members of the services operate.

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

Q Lord Evans, in the fullness of time, the Committee will consider amendments, so the final Bill might be slightly different in its shape. One can readily understand the very persuasive points that you have made, in particular with regard to MI6 and the need for good relationships with other countries on the sharing of information. However, we might consider command responsibility in a different way in the final Bill—the provision of safe mechanisms, for example closed sessions of inquiries or investigations, or possibly reporting mechanisms to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament. Were such arrangements in place, would that enable the head of a particular intelligence service to provide information to a safe place and, in turn, to the chair of an investigation or inquiry?

Lord Evans of Weardale: I would want to see the exact mechanism, but I do not think it is inconceivable that there could be a way of doing something of that sort, which in broad terms is similar to what is done with closed material proceedings in the civil courts. In order for a court to make a just decision, it needs to have access to the relevant information, even if that is sometimes highly sensitive. The closed material procedures ensure that such information can be brought forward and considered by the judge without its being visible to terrorist sympathisers, for instance, or Russian intelligence officers.

Closed proceedings can work. In some ways, they are sub-optimal because you have to work quite hard to give people confidence that they are really getting at the truth for the public. The ultimate safeguard for that is the fact that the judge is in control of their own court; if they do not believe that justice is being done, they can make that very clear. Over the years, those closed material procedures have been refined and slimmed down in such a way that they are quite widely accepted to be part of a proper justice system while protecting the sensitive information at hand.

[Maria Eagle]

Q We heard a concern earlier from Mr Weatherby of Hillsborough Law Now about the current drafting of the Bill effectively carving out the intelligence service from the same responsibility, as it applies to other public officials. He was concerned that schedule 1, which is an amendment to other legislation, meant that there is only corporate liability here. Is that your understanding of the way in which this is working?

Lord Evans of Weardale: My understanding is that the responsibility rests on the agency, rather than any one individual, to proactively provide the information, although the liability on the head of the agency includes criminal liability, should they fail to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Q Thank you so much for your testimony and your courage and for fighting for so long. It is a privilege to be on this Committee and to hear from you—and I apologise for our train system. I understand it has been a long journey and it has taken a long time to get here, but my question is: what will success look like in the future? What will it look like if the Bill is a success and does the thing we wanted it to do?

Jenni Hicks: What would be successful to me is getting to the truth more quickly and having a system that does not think it has the right to cover up the people in power, that tells the truth in the first instance, and has a good public advocacy team—I nearly called them the HIP—who help people not only by pointing them in the right direction, but help them get the information that they need and the documentation of that information, just as HIP did. That is imperative.

There are other good things, but you are totally depending on a culture change for the duty of candour, because this culture has been going on for a long time. That is why it has to be duty of candour with really stiff penalties if you are found out to be lying, not just excuses made or clever lawyers being able to interpret it in a different way. There are many versions of the truth out there, and the documentation is the truth, if you like. For me, that is what would be successful.

It would be successful if nobody else in this country had to wait 26 years to get a correct inquest verdict or 24 years to get the truth about how their loved one died, and nobody else had to go through being lied to for all those years about how their loved one died. The mud that the media put out there about what had happened still sticks in some places in this country. That will not help me, Hilda or any of the Hillsborough families, but it certainly will prevent anybody else going through what we have had to go through. That process is cruel; it is not right, and this country should be ashamed of putting bereaved people through it when the truth is as plain as the nose on your face.

[Seamus Logan]

Q I, too, salute your courage in your fight over many years to get to this point. The Bill is a landmark and will be something really good coming out of such a terrible tragedy, but it does not cover everything. We heard before lunch about things that other witnesses might like to see addressed. Hilda, is there anything that is not in the Bill that you would have liked to have seen included?

Hilda Hammond: I would have liked to see the NHS included. I know people have a duty of candour, but I am a retired nurse, so I know the NHS, and at the present time doctors and NHS workers—I will not say they hide behind it—are protected by the law of patient confidentiality. I may be missing it, but I cannot see anything in the Bill that addresses that and makes it clear that in something like this patient confidentiality should not stand in the way. It is a big hurdle, because doctors have been bound by it for years and years, and I do not know how you get around that. The NHS is a huge organisation, and it will be subject to huge amounts of litigation. That is one thing that really needs to be addressed.

We did not find out that Philip had gone to hospital—we did not know—until the following November, when his trainers came back with a hospital tag on. When we questioned them, they were all evasive and gave silly excuses. I said, “Well, did you attempt to resuscitate him?”, and they said, “Oh yes, he had electrode marks on him.” When I spoke to the pathologist, I said, “If a person is being resuscitated, someone puts the electrodes on, someone is getting IV access and someone is protecting their airway. You said there were no puncture marks on Philip.” Do you know what he told me? He said, “I don’t know whether you know this, but there is a cannula now that they put in and it doesn’t leave a mark.” Pure rubbish! Even on neonates you see where they have had the cannulas.

I do not know. Trying to get any information from the medical team is like a brick wall, isn’t it? I really think that is an important part of this law. It is such a good law, and you would not want it to fall at the hurdle of doctor’s being protected from telling the truth.

[Maria Eagle]

Q I would like to welcome Jenni and Hilda, who are my constituents, to the Committee. You have both mentioned the importance of getting to the truth fast, and you said, Jenni, that it was only the Hillsborough independent panel, over two decades later, that actually got to the truth and had it accepted. You received an apology from the Prime Minister of the day about what had happened.

Jenni Hicks: A double apology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Morrison]

Great—thank you.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Chief Constable, I want to follow up on some of the points you made about training. First, this is groundbreaking legislation; we are seeking to achieve a massive culture change, and there will be a code of ethics and a code of conduct. Do you foresee the possibility of additional training requirements for senior and middle managers in the police?

Chief Constable Guildford: I honestly think that what is proposed here complements what we have been doing over a period of years. This is not unexpected for the police service and it is not new for senior officers, but I think your point is a fair one in so far as these are new offences, and a particular number of people will be charged with investigating them. Those people will sit within the IOPC, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and they will also sit mainly within each of the professional standards departments of each of the 43 police forces. Some additional training will be required, but I think it will be very marginal in initial recruit training, because it very much complements what we already teach with that package.

[Seamus Logan]

Q My supplementary to that comes in the light of the earlier point by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills about the number of failings at an organisational level over the years, and there have been many. You have described various mechanisms within the police, but do you think there might be a need for something that sits completely outside the force—across the country, for different forces—to enable individuals, whether middle or senior management, to bring things to the attention of a safe place completely outside the police? Do you think that might assist?

Chief Constable Guildford: To be fair, that is a good question. My reflection, very much, is that we have the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is completely and utterly independent of the police service, all the chief constables and all the staff associations. That would be the body that an individual—let us say an individual in my position, potentially—could approach, if I had one of those specific concerns. From a police service perspective, I would say that that possibly already exists, but for other members of the public sector, that might be a very legitimate point of reflection and a good point. I think there would be some opportunity and benefit for other members of the public sector, yes.

[The Chair]

Thank you. If Members have no other questions, I thank Chief Constable Guildford for his contribution.

Chief Constable Guildford: You are very welcome.

Examination of Witnesses

Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

Q To go back to your point about coherence, it would be helpful to hear how you foresee your role working with the additional support that will come through this law. Help us understand how it fits together. What does the coherence you might feel is not quite there at the moment look like?

Cindy Butts: I hope that the inclusion of the IPA in law means that organisations understand the IPA’s role of supporting victims, survivors and bereaved families in accessing information and advocating for them for truth—for truth telling. I hope that it is clear that the responsibility of the IPA is to help them to achieve exactly that.

[Seamus Logan]

Q We have not met before, but may I call you Cindy?

Cindy Butts: Yes, please do.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Thank you.

Thank you for your very extensive evidence, which is very impressive from someone who has been in post for just two months. However, I wanted to ask you about your previous experience—we got little CVs for the witnesses—as a commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and in the transformation of the Metropolitan police following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. You have extensive experience in very relevant areas. Can you comment on the scale and size of the task in front of us with this Bill? It is very extensive and lists a large number of public authorities. Can you comment on that?

Cindy Butts: I am not sure that I quite understand your question.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Well, you have got the duty of candour, the code of ethics, the code of conduct and the new offences. Do you feel that that represents a challenge for large public organisations?

Cindy Butts: I think it will present a challenge for them, because it is very different from what we have now and indeed from what has ever existed. That is a testament to those who have worked on the Bill and to what it is trying to achieve. It will be an enormous change for them, but it is a change that is long overdue and desperately needed. Yes, it is challenging, but I would like to think that they see the importance and value of the changes that are coming into being, and that they will rise to that challenge, because the status quo is no longer acceptable.

[Seamus Logan]

Q And you know all about cultural change, following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry—

Cindy Butts: I do, and it is part of the reason why, in my submission, I spoke to the issue of exceptional circumstances, because, of course, my role comes into play following a major tragedy, such as Hillsborough, or the Manchester Arena bombing, or indeed the Manchester synagogue attack, which I am currently deployed to assist with. On the other hand, I also know that there are cases when only one single death might have occurred, but despite the impact of that single death on a family, and indeed the public interest involved with that, such families are left without the kind of support that I provide after major incidents. Trauma should not be measured by numbers, so I think that is a fundamental gap, which is not necessarily in this Bill, although I would not mind if it were addressed through the Bill. You only have to look at what Stephen Lawrence’s family went through or, indeed, more recently with Harry Dunn and the complexity that that poor family had to deal with, largely on their own.

[The Chair]

We have about a minute and a half left if Maria Eagle wants to ask a question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q Do you think it is accurate that some organisations in the NHS still see being transparent, and admitting harm and problems, as the legal risk?

Helen Vernon: They should not, but as we mentioned, there is inconsistency. Part of our collective role is to make sure that people understand its importance, how to do it well and how to deliver candour in practice.

Professor Fowler: You mentioned closed cultures. I spent six months recently working as an interim in the CQC in the gap between chief inspectors. One of the things we recognised is that where we saw organisations with challenges, there was often also a closed culture. To be clear, that is a minority of organisations, but I think the two go together.

Dr Chopra: I recognise your questions, and I agree with what Aidan said. I have seen instances where what you have described is the case—as Helen said, it is inconsistent—and I have seen brave clinicians who have said, “Right, if it is not going to trigger the organisational statutory duty of candour, I do have a professional duty of candour, and I am going to raise it that way.” I hope the Bill will bolster that, as we have said.

[Seamus Logan]

Q I should declare that I worked in the health service for 33 years—not all politicians are political careerists. You are all very senior people, and obviously very experienced, but I want to get behind the corporate and ask for your personal opinions, based on your experience. My colleague drew attention to the fact that so many people in the health service have tried to blow the whistle and suffered serious detriment; in many cases, people have lost their jobs. If someone had blown the whistle on the infected blood scandal, thousands of lives would have been saved and the public purse would have been saved quite literally billions of pounds. Even with all the measures that have been put in place, why are people still suffering serious detriment when they try to blow the whistle? I am asking for your personal opinions. Professor Fowler, I will put that to you first, because you have experience in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Professor Fowler: This is a very complicated issue. A few cases of people who have suffered detriment around freedom to speak up become very magnified. I genuinely do not see that as the experience of most people who speak up, but we do hear about it. In some cases, there is a great deal of complexity. In some cases, a massive breakdown of relationships within a unit that had started to impact the unit is what required the person to act in the way they did. Getting the balance right is a complex business.

In the past, I had cases where I thought, “This is a serious issue and we need to do something about it,” and was encouraged to think otherwise. That is historical—I am talking 20 years ago—and I have certainly not experienced it recently. I am not someone who has felt that there is an impediment to me speaking up, and I see plenty of examples where people are able to do that, but you do occasionally hear of people who feel they cannot, in difficult circumstances. We are working to change that culture and make it clear that there is detriment to not speaking up rather than the other way round, but it is a complex challenge. There is progress, but there is more to do. I hope that this Bill can be part of that, but there are some cautions to getting this right and getting the balance right.

Dr Chopra: I agree. I think it is about the culture. There is that saying that culture eats strategy for breakfast; in the same way, culture will eat many of these provisions. We have to get the culture right, and we need to do anything that we can to tilt the balance to create a culture of openness and candour. The reason people fear suffering detriment is that they have seen examples; we have to recognise that the high-profile cases that Aidan mentioned do have an impact on people coming forward. In fact, we probably ought to be celebrating those instances where people are able to raise concerns and blow the whistle, and things improve. That might help to start shifting the culture.

[Seamus Logan]

Q How would we do that?

Dr Chopra: Going back to what I was saying about our role as a regulator, I have focused on where we have taken enforcement powers where we have seen things that have not worked, but I think we could also do the opposite. As a regulator, we could be talking about those areas that we see as outstanding, and platforming what they have done with their policies, processes and procedures that have made them outstanding. Being a regulator that champions innovation and outstanding organisations is something that the CQC could contribute. That might be one way.

I have worked in other jurisdictions. When I think about how duty of candour works in Scotland, one of the differences is that every organisation in Scotland has to do an annual duty of candour statement. Each organisation is required to set out at the end of the year how many instances of duty of candour have been picked up, the very top headlines of what the issues were, and what they are doing about it. I thought that was a good provision that I saw operating up north. It is not perfect, but it shows how the duty is working in practice. I was working in an assurance body up there, and it allowed me to look across the country to see what was happening and whether there were areas where under-reporting may be taking place. It allowed better monitoring at national level.

Helen Vernon: In addition to what we do in relation to compensation, we have a role in the effective management of concerns about practitioner performance. Recognising some of the things that you mentioned, we did some work on some guidance called “Being fair”, which was about setting out some principles on a just and learning culture and what that looks like. Translating that into practice has meant creating templates and some simple principles that can be shared across different organisations to make it easy for people to speak up safely. That was co-produced with the input of regulators and clinicians who have been through some difficult processes, but it is one of the ways in which we can bring practical guidance to sometimes difficult concepts.

[Dr Mullan]

Q We heard in evidence this morning about a sense that prevention of future deaths reports are made but nothing is necessarily done to follow up on them. Dr Chopra, my understanding is that it is essentially the CQC’s job to take into account anything that is of material interest in an organisation, such as a prevention of future deaths report, and that you see it as your job to follow those reports up and at least attempt to ensure that they are listened to.

Dr Chopra: We get notified of incidents. To be very frank, we are a responsive organisation when incidents occur; when we are made aware of PFD reports, we look at them. Because of the way that we look at things, as I said, we are responsive rather than taking a proactive view, but yes, that is right. One thing that might be helpful is to bring those recommendations to a national body. We are pinning a lot on the National Quality Board at the moment, but it would be helpful to bring recommendations to a central place that would allow their dissemination so that they land not just in the organisation where the incident occurred but across the piece.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Morrison]

Q I have a follow-up to Ian’s question. The new offence of misleading of the public would not apply

“for the purposes of journalism.”

That is the wording in the Bill. As has been so rightly pointed out, we know there has been a history of public officials who have been using the media in lead-ups to inquiries and so on. Critics, to a point of view that I might have, would say that any kind of stamping down or work on that would be an attack on freedom of speech. What would you say to that?

Nathan Sparkes: In a lot of legislation there are special exemptions for journalism, and often that is justified, but I think it is for the Government to justify that exemption when they bring forward legislation. I do not think it can be justified in this case.

Looking at that offence, there is a six-part test for it to apply. The person must have departed significantly from the expectations of their role, they must have caused harm to someone, they must have been responsible for significant or reputed dishonesty, it must be about a matter of significant concern to the public, it must be seriously improper, and they ought to know that it was seriously improper. That is an incredibly high threshold, and rightly so, but it is inconceivable that there is any legitimate journalistic activity that would satisfy the remarkably high threshold of all six tests that we would want to protect. On that basis, we do not think it is appropriate. The challenge for the Government is whether they could identify a circumstance in which any journalistic activity that would be in breach of those would be legitimate. I do not think they can; I think that is inconceivable.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Ron, it says in our brief that in 2006, you predicted the impending sub-prime/collateralised debt obligation crisis. Should I sell everything? I am only kidding.

Ron Warmington: I do think that everything is hyped, but luckily, I was in Burbank looking at a business that did that, and it was the worst business—at that point— that I had ever looked at, so it was easy to predict what would happen.

[Seamus Logan]

Q What I wanted to ask you about seriously was culture change, because that is what a lot of the Bill is about—about how we ensure that Hillsborough or the infected blood scandal never happen again. How do we achieve that culture change? What are your opinions on that?

Ron Warmington: I have been in this situation in boardrooms where something horrible has happened—a valve has blown up on the ocean floor, a building has burnt down or whatever. There needs to be a contrarian—it does not always have to be the same person—who is prepared to say, “Look, chaps, ladies, what I’m hearing is that you all want to cover this up. Let me tell you why this isn’t a good idea.” A lot of cover-ups stay covered up, but occasionally, one gets uncovered, and then the consequences are much worse than if we had come clean. We need to get the board members to see that balance. I would like to see training in business schools on the consequences of embarking on a cover-up—there probably is none. How do we get the decision makers to do the right thing? It is not religion that is going to persuade them to do that any more—it used to be.

I am used to working in huge organisations that were big enough to have their own independent investigation teams—I used to run them—which would be completely trusted by whistleblowers. We knew that one never burnt a whistleblower. They could safely come to us. That generates in an organisation a unit, a department, that can be trusted to deal with the worst possible things that you can imagine happening. Most companies are not big enough to have such an organisation, and some are big enough but do not want one. Maybe there is a case to be made for some sort of national body to be that independent investigative authority—something that is not quite a public or statutory inquiry.

In my investigation, we should never have been contracted to the Post Office. That was the subject of the investigation thinking that it was paying the piper, and that therefore it could call the tune. There needs to be some body—the National Audit Office does fantastic work—to which people could go and feel in safe hands. I do not know how we change the ethics of the corporate world. I wish we could; I just do not think the ethics are the same as they were when I was a wee lad. I do not know what will bring it back. It is not just this country that is suffering in that way. I am sorry—I am dodging your question.

[Seamus Logan]

Not at all—I thought it was a good answer.

Flora Page: It is about incentives, isn’t it? The incentives have to be aligned for folk to do the right thing.

Ron Warmington: Yes, we have to get people to make the right decision. They will not do it just because it is the right thing to do. Some people will—even though it is costly to themselves, their careers or their companies, they will do the right thing; I have been brought up with people like that. Other people need to be persuaded to do the right thing by threats or by incentives, or ideally both.

I do not think we can just hope for the best that the ethics of corporate Great Britain and civil service Great Britain are going to change. I mean, I have seen Ministers talk utter nonsense because their civil servants parroted nonsense that was parroted to them by people in the organisations that ought to have been subject to review. I feel sorry for MPs and Ministers in those cases.

Jacqui Hames: It is important to point out that the media companies responsible for the industrial-scale phone hacking saga are corporations. They make a profit or loss, and they hide behind the free speech mantra, but ultimately they are creating a culture where this behaviour is acceptable—where criminality is acceptable. There is no doubt that a whistleblower coming from their side of the fence would be treated extremely badly.

As a victim of phone hacking, as an ex-police officer who had their personal items sold to a news corporation, I know that you have nowhere to go in those circumstances if those corporations are just going to hide behind a freedom of speech defence. It is not freedom of speech to spread misinformation and disinformation that affect the wellbeing of hundreds of people who have already gone through intolerable experiences.

[Tessa Munt]

Q We had a discussion earlier today about whether the powers also cover subcontractors. I think that is probably one of Ron’s questions as well.

Ron Warmington: I have it written down, yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I suspect my colleague is going to ask you about journalism more generally—surprise, surprise.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Daniel, are you familiar with the proposals from Hillsborough Law Now?

Daniel De Simone: I have read their submissions.

[Seamus Logan]

So you are aware of the proposals regarding command responsibility?

Daniel De Simone: Yes.

[Seamus Logan]

Do you agree with them?

Daniel De Simone: I am not really here to speak on behalf of the BBC about command response or anything else but, as you heard from what I said about MI5, where responsibility can be taken by individuals, that is better than it falling on organisations, because organisations are more slippery and it is harder to hold them to account. Where an individual has to take responsibility, that is better.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Would you accept that there might be circumstances in which the head of a particular intelligence organisation might need a safe place to be able to reveal sensitive information?

Daniel De Simone: Absolutely, and that is why we have closed material procedures within the courts. Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee frequently sits in secret—that is not in public. There absolutely needs to be places where intelligence and sensitive matters can be discussed. Clearly, no one wants harm to national security or for there to be genuine damage to anyone. I think there are ways of dealing with it. When he gave evidence earlier, Lord Evans said that himself, and he is the former head of MI5.

[Seamus Logan]

Q With all that said, do you think the reach of the Official Secrets Act might go a little too far in some circumstances?

Daniel De Simone: In what way?

[Seamus Logan]

It is hard to describe a particular example, but in a way that might prevent a whistleblower from taking necessary action.

Daniel De Simone: I think so, yes. Journalists have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act. I am a journalist who has worked in the area of security and matters to do with terrorism, so I am familiar with there being a risk to journalists with official secrets. Someone might tell you something that puts themselves at risk, or they might put you at risk. In practice we see very few prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act—we do not see many of them now—so this is not something that is happening all the time, but there is a risk.

There is obviously a balance, because security and intelligence agencies do not want to feel that anyone who works there can just go off and reveal things that they think are very sensitive, but equally it is also true that there can be things that are wrong within those organisations, and there is not always an obvious place for someone to go if they feel like that. There is often a big risk to that person for doing that. So yes, it can be too much.

[Ian Byrne]

Q Thanks, Daniel—it has been a fascinating evidence session so far. You have a lot of personal experience with MI5 over the last couple of years. Do you genuinely believe that the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, will drive the cultural change that we feel we need?

Daniel De Simone: For MI5? No, I do not think so. Look at what the head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has said. He said in a speech last month that there are particular responsibilities on MI5 as a secret agency to comply with oversight and be as transparent as it can with these sorts of things. He was talking with reference particularly to the fact that MI5 was found to have given false evidence in our case. So strong words are clearly being said.

The trouble we have in our case is that when we showed that there was false evidence, and they accepted that, the third in command of MI5—the director general, strategy—then came along and gave an account to the court that the court, the Lady Chief Justice, the president of the King’s bench division and the head of the administrative court now say was not an accurate reflection of the closed material. That happened after they said they were going to be very transparent with the court. They really had to be dragged to the point they are now in, where there is an investigation that the court—the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—required. That is being carried out under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. His organisation was also misled.

In our case, every kind of judicial body charged with holding MI5 to account, or its regulator, has been given false evidence. That is an issue, and it calls into question issues around a duty of candour. Lord Evans said in his evidence earlier that there is already a duty of candour responsibility on MI5 and the Government in the courts, and that is true. In our case, they have admitted that they did not meet that test. It is there; the issue is that it is not always being complied with. As I understand it, the point of the Bill is to strengthen that duty and enforce it. That seems to be why it is there.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate and for his excellent speech. Let me take ten precious seconds to point out that, apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), not one single member of His Majesty’s Opposition has come along to this debate.

Despite what the Prime Minister said on the 2 July, committing himself to the Hillsborough law, including criminal sanctions, The Times reported on 13 July that the Treasury was holding this up because of problems regarding funding for legal aid. My contribution to this debate is based on my long public service in health and social care, which spans four decades. Scandal, cover-up, service failure and outright abuse over those decades says to me that, despite the Nolan principles in public life, our leaders cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.

There have been so many examples of whistleblowers in public life who, rather than being honoured for trying to put a stop to these failures, are hounded and harried by the very authorities they are seeking to challenge. That is why, more than ever, we need an office of the whistleblower, independent of Government and with the powers to enforce any duty of candour on public authorities. My public service began in the same organisation that was responsible for the Kincora children’s home scandal. Many of us in this place remember, all these years later, that we have still not got to the bottom of that.

I also want to point out that, in ensuing years, I witnessed large-scale failures in the care of older people, people with learning disabilities, children in care and other client groups, not only in this jurisdiction, but in the Republic of Ireland as well. In each and every case, the organisational system worked overtime to protect its reputation. Senior public servants, who should have come clean from the outset, worked hard to cover up these matters from full public view. That is why this law is so important, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who introduced this debate.

As I said, behind this law is the need to give it teeth through the establishment of an office of the whistleblower. Public inquiries simply do not provide the answers we need. Just think of the late Dr David Kelly, who died more than 22 years ago, and why details about his untimely death were sealed for 70 years by the Hutton inquiry. In conclusion, I simply ask one question: why have the Government not yet set out how they expect the proposed legislation to work? The clock is ticking. People need actions, not words.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to ensure access to legal aid for those who live in rural areas. The Legal Aid Agency was satisfied that legal aid services across all categories are adequate in her constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Digital technology is transforming access to justice through remote consultations and Government-funded websites, such as Advicenow. I encourage her constituents to access legal aid through those means, as well as through local providers.

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

5. What progress she has made on reviewing terms and conditions of service for prison officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I pay tribute to the essential work that our prison officers do, day in, day out. This year’s pay award delivered another real-terms pay rise for our frontline prison staff. We are committed to effective training and development of existing staff, as delivered through the Enable programme, alongside the provision of extensive wellbeing services.

[Seamus Logan]

I was in correspondence with the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending last October, but he sits in the other place. In January, I was advised by the Minister in this place that the Secretary of State was awaiting advice about the range of terms and conditions issues for prison officers. I was also advised later in the spring, again from the Dispatch Box, that it was right that the situation was being “kept under review”. I thank the Minister for the thoughtful and sincere way in which he has engaged with me in recent months, but given that I have been asking about this issue for nine months, can he provide an update today on progress with the advice, and on exactly what is being reviewed?

Protection of Prison Staff

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very happy to continue to work with the Prison Officers Association and other staff associations working in the prison sector to try to address the issues that my right hon. Friend rightly raises.

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

The Minister very graciously found time in his busy schedule to meet me and colleagues recently to discuss the “68 is Too Late” campaign. Does he agree that recent events prove the tremendous pressures on our prison officers and staff, and will he give an undertaking to me and the House that, during the course of this Parliament, the terms and conditions of prison officers could be reviewed, especially with a view to the “68 is Too Late” campaign?

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks! The right hon. Member completely forgets that, only six months ago, his Government were in charge. The Government of which he was part all but ran our justice system into the ground. I do not recall seeing him standing up and speaking about delays for rape victims, or indeed any other kind of victim, when he was on this side of the House. I am glad he has now realised that the system ought to try to put victims first. His critique would have more force were it not for the fact that this Government, having come to office only six months ago, have increased Crown court sitting capacity by 2,500 days.

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

2. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the terms and conditions for prison officers’ pensions on the recruitment of prison officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our prison staff for the essential work that they do? We are committed to improving the retention of experienced staff, because they are vital to keeping our prisons running. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as this is considered.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for his warm words and encouraging remarks. He will know that in Scotland the “68 is too late” campaign by the Prison Officers Association enjoys cross-party and Scottish Government support, but the UK Government have refused to take action on this important issue. The current retirement terms ignore the reality of the frontline role that prison officers perform in prisons on a daily basis across the UK. It is a dangerous role, and no less so than that of firefighters or the police, who enjoy very different terms. Although justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the pensions of Scottish prison officers are controlled by the UK Government. So will the Minister or the Secretary of State commit the Government to reviewing the current prison officer retirement age of 68, and will he meet me to hear this case in more detail?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As I have said, the Lord Chancellor has requested advice on this matter. We promote our strong employee total reward package as part of our recruitment. The terms and conditions of the civil service pension scheme are some of the best in the public sector, with a low employee contribution rate and a significant employer contribution rate of 28.97%. However, that does not mean it is not a right and proper question to ask, and if the hon. Member wishes to have a meeting with me, I am quite happy to meet him.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. It has been an education for me.

I want to refer to a constituent of mine by name. I heard the cautionary remarks at the start of the debate, so I will not name any other individuals. None of these matters is sub judice. Jan Cruickshank has consented to the use of her name today in the sharing of details of her case. She is a devoted mother of three and has been in a committed relationship with her husband Rob since meeting as childhood sweethearts. Many of the cases we have heard about today involve mega-wealthy, high-profile individuals. Jan is not such an individual.

Jan faced a problem with her employer, the Construction Industry Training Board. In 2015, she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a co-worker at the Construction Industry Training Board. Upon reporting the assault to CITB, Jan unfortunately suffered a nervous breakdown and had to take sick leave. The person against whom the complaint was made was put on gardening leave. He returned after a week, even though he had been told to take at least a month. On returning to work, he began propagating false narratives, suggesting that Jan was falsely accusing him. Jan had reported the assault while in a vulnerable state, having recently suffered a significant house fire. The conditions of a subsequent police interview, which lasted approximately 10 hours, in a damaged environment compromised the integrity of the process.

A senior whistleblower at CITB has revealed that its legal team had indicated a substantial potential liability should Jan’s case come to trial. The whistleblower confirmed that there was a targeted campaign to discredit Jan over several mediums. CITB misused the false narrative to depict Jan as a home-wrecker, subsequently initiating a predetermined human resources investigation focused on facilitating her exit from the company. A second whistleblower has corroborated that management planned to exit Jan from the business a month before her HR process was complete.

Following the assault, Jan was placed in the untenable position of having to confront her alleged attacker daily on her return to work, amid ongoing HR investigations. Let us bear in mind that this was 2015—someone had to face that situation because a large employer had failed to take proper steps to separate those two individuals and allow them to work freely. Jan’s employment was terminated after what she describes as a warped and unprofessional HR investigation. CITB later communicated to the police that the situation stemmed from a consensual relationship, and further lied to the police, suggesting that Jan had been sending explicit pictures to the offender, dismissing the severity of the allegations. That submission had a severely negative impact on her case and does so to this day.

Jan pursued matters to an employment tribunal, with the support of her union, but she faced significant challenges. Here is the rub, which is relevant to the debate today: she was pressured into accepting a settlement far below the realistic sum that she should have been entitled to. Furthermore, she was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so she could not speak freely about the case. This is why I believe that Jan’s case falls into the category of a SLAPP. She is determined to seek justice, so that the alleged attacker is prosecuted and she receives just compensation. This will enable her and her family to move forward.

The term SLAPP is often employed to describe legal actions aimed at harassing, intimidating, or exhausting victims’ resources. A broader understanding of SLAPPs emphasises the need for protective measures for individuals seeking justice. Jan should not have been subjected to a HR investigation or an employment tribunal. Rather, she deserved time off work for recovery and support following the trauma that she had experienced. Worst of all, the Police Scotland interviewing officer lacked the requisite training to handle such a sensitive sexual assault case, resulting in the premature conclusion of the matter. It was later discovered that this was the officer’s first interview of that type, and she should have had supervision to guide her.

I could wax on about many more aspects of this case, but I will bring it to a close at this point, because Jan’s situation starkly illustrates the extreme harm that can be inflicted by behaviours classified as strategic lawsuits against public participation. These tactics not only target individual victims but create a pervasive ripple effect that extends to their families, communities and the broader public. I ask CITB to consider issuing a public apology to Jan; I ask the police to consider re-looking at the whole way that the case was handled; and I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss this situation further in more detail.