Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Seamus Logan and Lizzi Collinge

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Seamus Logan]

To be clear, it depends.

[Lizzi Collinge]

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

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

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Seamus Logan and Lizzi Collinge

Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.