Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

To reassure my hon. Friend, the House, the families and all others affected by such scandals, these are clauses in a Bill that will soon be sections in a piece of legislation, but they are more than that: they change the nature of the relationship between the state and its duties to its people. That is so important. Yes, this Bill is the legal architecture, but something much bigger than this has to be put in place.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, then I will come to my right hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

I welcome this Bill. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents that organisations that are contractors for public authorities and public bodies will also be covered the provisions of the Bill? It is important that where responsibilities are deferred to other bodies, they too are captured by the clauses in this Bill.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady anticipates my next point, which I will make before taking an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). We have to recognise that in some scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, the boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are complicated. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, clause 4 of this Bill applies the duty to some private bodies, particularly those delivering public functions and those with relevant health and safety responsibilities, as well as relevant public sector contractors—in the Post Office case, Fujitsu—for that very reason. We have to recognise that the boundaries are blurred, and we need to make sure that the duty extends appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my role as vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation?

The Bill places new obligations of transparency and frankness on public authorities and officials, leaving them nowhere to hide from public scrutiny of their actions. I absolutely applaud those aims. We have been offered the opportunity to strengthen the Bill, and I have a contribution to make that stems from more than a decade of listening to whistleblowers. The UK has no proper law on whistleblowing or for protecting whistleblowers. Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, gives a measure of protection from detriments to workers and employees who make what are termed “public interest disclosures”. However, that provision treats such detriments as essentially employment matters; it does not once use the words “whistleblowing” or “whistleblower” and does not extend beyond workers and employees. It is highly technical, puts all sorts of barriers and difficulties in the way of workers and employees who make public interest disclosures, focuses exclusively on the employment context, and rarely—if ever—leads to any wider investigation of the substantive matters about which the worker or employee makes a disclosure.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill misses an opportunity: it could and should have recognised the important role played by whistleblowers in ensuring accountability. The whistleblower is, or should be, the best friend of every chief executive officer, every board, and every Minister. Whistleblowers want to see an end to crime, corruption and cover-up; they do not want to be fired for raising their concerns. Almost everyone will recognise the major scandals in which whistleblowers have reported what was happening again and again but have not been believed or, worse, have been invited or forced to leave their role. The case against whistleblowers is all about protection of reputation and the imbalance of power, and I recognise entirely what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said.

Explicit recognition was given to the role of whistleblowers in the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on 9 July 2025, with the support of the Hillsborough victims. Clauses 2, 5(1) and 9 in that Bill would have been of huge significance in advancing the protection of whistleblowers. For the first time in legislation, the Bill gave explicit recognition to whistleblowing—a word which had hitherto not featured in the legislative lexicon. The ten-minute rule Bill sought to extend the concept of public interest disclosures beyond employment law; it would have extended whistleblower protection to all who blow the whistle, many of whom will be outside the scope of employment law. If that Bill had proceeded, whistleblowing as a legal concept would have broken out of the confines of employment law.

Clause 9 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to publish codes of ethics. It would be easy for the Government to take into their Bill the provision from the earlier Bill requiring public authority codes of ethics to recognise the need to protect whistleblowers. It is deeply disappointing and unfortunate that it does not, and I ask the Minister to address that point and amend the Bill in her mission to strengthen it. If that were to happen, it would be a start, but further reform would still be needed. First, the provision would apply only when the potential wrongdoer was a public authority within the scope of the Bill. Secondly, such protection as would be given would arise only indirectly through the existence of a code of ethics. Thirdly, the Bill would lack teeth to deal with breaches of the code of ethics. Fourthly, there would still be no mechanism for investigating and following up the wrongdoing that a whistleblower might have uncovered.

There remains an urgent need to set up the office of the whistleblower, and to extend the Bill’s scope to include contractors in the private sector—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Lady of the scope of this Bill?

[Tessa Munt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sought to pick up on the Minister’s and Prime Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Bill is as strong as it can be.

The Bill should cover contractors in the private sector as well as the public sector, as was mentioned, if it is to have real teeth and ensure that wrongdoing is fully investigated and that wrongdoers are brought to account. Will the Minister meet me and whistleblowers to explore the scope of this Bill?

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I wish to declare that I am a director and vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit organisation.

[The Chair]

That is now a matter of record. If any other Member has interests to declare, will they please do so before they start questioning?

Examination of Witness

Pete Weatherby gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Q The Bill clearly has its duty of candour and assistance. You have already made comments about focusing on the chief executive or the senior leader in any organisation. Can I check with you whether you feel that that would be sufficient to enable cultural change within organisations?

Pete Weatherby: No. The reason I have majored on command responsibilities is because that is a weakness in the Bill, but the Bill applies across the piece and to all public servants at all times, with the general duty as well as the duty of candour and assistance, which is the ancillary duty, if you like. So that is really important.

We are very keen to underline that this is an empowering Bill. In many of the cases—Hillsborough is a particularly good example—ordinary, decent police officers tried to tell the truth and were not allowed to tell the truth. This is a Bill that imposes a duty of candour across the piece. Everybody knows about it. Senior officers required junior officers to tell lies—this is the evidence they themselves gave on oath. That has to be stopped, and this Bill does that. We have tried to build in it those empowerment things, including whistleblowing—enhanced whistleblowing provisions and the like.

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

Q Welcome, Mr Weatherby. I would like to ask about two things, one of which is command responsibility. With Hillsborough, within four and half months, Lord Justice Taylor’s report quite rightly pinned the main blame on South Yorkshire police’s lack of proper behaviour on the day. If you had had command responsibility, that would have included the South Yorkshire chief constable and perhaps the match commander, who we know lied live on TV about what had happened. Do you think that the Bill, without command responsibility, would have managed to deal with that big problem at Hillsborough—the cover-up and the lies that were told to defend the match commander, presumably authorised and okayed by the chief constable? Do you think that the provisions, as they are, would have prevented that cover-up?

Pete Weatherby: I do not think there is a clear yes or no answer to that, but it is not strong enough. The purpose of what we want to do with command responsibility is to stop the chief constable thinking that it is okay to put the false narrative forward. If there is a legal responsibility on the chief constable to discharge the corporate duty, he is not going to do that. I think that if the amendment is made, the answer is yes; if the Bill is left as it is, it is more complicated. If it is left, I think it will make a big difference, but it will not stop as many of the problems.

There are other examples. Going back to Manchester Arena, the chief constable of Manchester put forward false evidence to the Kerslake inquiry. Those are not my words; he subsequently described it as “a very grave error”. He did that because he did not have command responsibility, and he thought he could get away with it. The command responsibility needs to be made clear, and the provision in clause 2(5) does not go far enough—it is ineffective.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The Minister has once again kindly waived her right to question, so I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, please.

[Tessa Munt]

Q The duty of candour binds those who are in a direct contractual relationship with the public authority. I am interested in knowing how far down the line it would go to subcontractors and, indeed, subcontractors of subcontractors.

Tom Guest: It is right to identify that the extension of liability is only to direct contractual relationships, so not necessarily further down the line. I would make two qualifications to that. First, we will look at the evidence and the precise contractual relationship—what the evidence of the contract is. Secondly, I think we are talking about clause 4(2) here, which would also cover a private contractor who had a health and safety responsibility in connection with the incident. Although it does not cover the contractual relationship further down the line, that is an alternative route to liability.

[Tessa Munt]

Q What do you feel are the potential risks and benefits of requiring permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute?

Tom Guest: Let me explain how the DPP’s consent to prosecute works. In most criminal offences, a private prosecutor or the police can commence proceedings—so they get a summons or they charge someone, the suspect becomes a defendant and they go into the court system automatically.

Where the DPP’s consent is required, that means that the permission of the CPS is required to prosecute. We apply our standard tests to that: “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute?” and “Is a prosecution in the public interest?” They are the same tests that we apply to a prosecution. If we conclude that those tests are met, we take the prosecution forward ourselves. If we conclude that they are not met, the case does not go into the court system.

The purpose of the DPP’s consent is to make sure that unmeritorious or vexatious prosecutions cannot get taken forward. Certainly, in terms of the misconduct offences, sometimes there are private prosecutors who wish to take forward unmeritorious prosecutions, so it is a check and balance on that. If it is a meritorious prosecution, however, we will go ahead with the prosecution ourselves.

[The Chair]

It would help if Members could indicate which witnesses they wish to address their remarks to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Once again, the Minister has indicated that she wants Members to have the opportunity to ask questions. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.

[Tessa Munt]

Q Can I just say how sorry I feel for you? It sounds dreadful and I am sorry. The question I should ask you is, “How confident are you that this will change the culture in public authorities?”, but I sense from what I have heard that I ought to ask, do you have any confidence that the Bill will change things?

Charlotte Hennessy: We are very confident. We have literally given 10 years of our lives, fighting to be here in this place. We have to acknowledge that Keir Starmer is the only Prime Minister who has endorsed the Bill. I would like to remind everyone that our Prime Minister made me a promise. He made a pledge to the public. It is now your duty to ensure that you fulfil that promise as well. If we were not confident in the Bill, we would not be sitting here today.

Steve Kelly: Just touching on something that Seamus was talking about before, about changing cultures within authorities and so on, I would like to give you an example that has never left me. During the Hillsborough inquests, a man in his 40s or early 50s was giving evidence. He was an ex-PC—at the time of Hillsborough, he was probably a young PC. He was being questioned about the culture within the South Yorkshire police force at the time in 1989.

I will never forget that man saying, “When you used to go Snig Hill, and you’d be walking along the corridor, you’d hold your head down when you’d see the bosses. You daren’t look at them, because we were frightened of them.” How could we encourage young officers like that to become whistleblowers? You couldn’t. We need a culture change. I thought that was a great point that this is something this law might do for not only policemen, but any public servants—anyone deserves support if they are trying to right a wrong.

That young policeman must have taken that with him to those inquests. I remember looking at his face and thinking, “That’s the first time you’ve got that out.” The burden was on him all those years as well. It should not be like that. Hopefully, the Hillsborough law will support that.

Sue Roberts: You are right; the culture changes have to be led from the very top—from the CEOs of these companies. Either they have to want to make this change happen or they need to move on.

[Anneliese Midgley]

Q I have two questions for the whole panel. To start with, thank you so much for everything that you have done. There is no doubt about it; we would not be here in this room today with the Bill where it is without your work. We heard in an earlier evidence session from Pete Weatherby KC, the director of Hillsborough Law Now, who talked about command responsibility. He said that without the amendment, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good, but is rather ineffective. He also talked about application to the intelligence services. Do you agree with what Pete Weatherby said to us today? Owing to the shortness of time, I will ask my second question as well: what do you think the Bill Committee needs to hear from you today?

Charlotte Hennessy: We completely support what Pete said earlier and the amendments that he has suggested. We are in full agreement with all the information that has been included in the Bill. Going forward, we need to acknowledge that Hillsborough is our story, but there are many, many others. We also need to acknowledge that the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group is made up of so many other examples of miscarriages of justice. They will have submitted their own evidence to you, so I will not name them all today, but we need to ensure that there is change going forward. We cannot keep allowing the same situations to repeat.

Not to be disrespectful, but ultimately we also need to acknowledge that the current laws that are in place failed to secure prosecutions against those that were responsible. David Duckenfield told that one lie while he stood over people who were scrambling for their lives. He got away with that because the Crown Prosecution failed to secure a criminal case against him. He was offered sympathy while family members had to sit and watch. He was allowed to place files so that he did not have to look at the family members that were sat in the public gallery.

We could sit and talk about examples all day. Norman Bettison was in this building. He briefed people about what happened at Hillsborough. He was allowed to do that. He was then made chief constable of Merseyside and then he was knighted. He was complicit in the cover-up. We have to change it. It has to stop.

Margaret Aspinall: I have to thank Maria Eagle—if you don’t mind, Maria. I always remember, a good few years ago, Maria having the power—the guts—to stand up in Parliament and say that it was “black propaganda” with Bettison. She was absolutely spot on.

When I look back over the years and think about what Charlotte was saying earlier, Mr Duckenfield—I call him Mr Duckenfield out of respect to all of you; otherwise I would not—walked away scot-free. He went missing for a couple of hours and not one person knew where he was. He could not remember where he had been; he could not remember where he was. He must have been the bloody Invisible Man because, good God, there’s no way. I think the police were scared to say exactly where he was. They were all scared; they were all covering up for each other. To me, that is an absolute, utter, utter disgrace of a system in this country.

I know we can’t bring judges up, but there is a few of them should be brought up. When we were at the private prosecution, where a judge could turn round and tell Mr Duckenfield, “Don’t worry, Mr Duckenfield, you won’t get a custodial sentence,” we knew then we had no chance—no chance. He directed the jury twice, because they came in and asked a question. For him to turn round and say, “What message are you sending out to the emergency services if you come back with guilty?”, what does that tell all of you? It tells you we had no chance whatsoever. We were up against a system that was corrupt from the very top to the bottom.

I feel sometimes we are on trial yet again for what happened at Hillsborough, because we are sitting here like this. I feel I am trying to ask all of you to do the right thing. I have asked the Prime Minister. He made that promise; he made a phone call to me that he would do the right thing. As Charlotte said, we thank him for that. He has made that promise; he will have to fulfil that promise. He has also promised it would not be watered down. For Hillsborough families—and for the likes of Ian as well, who was at that game and who knows what we have all gone through and what the survivors went through—we are here to change a system that should have been changed decades ago. When you look at all the cover-ups that have gone on—I can name them all, but I won’t, because I am sure you all know—it is a disgrace that we are sitting here now, 36 years on, trying to change the system. I am asking all of you, please don’t let anybody else go through what we have gone through. Please, I ask you all: do the right thing.