Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.

Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [Interruption.] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that.

There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.

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

One of the hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues went to Downing Street just a month ago with a letter that says he believes he was misled by his own Department when he was the Secretary of State for Defence, so why on earth is the hon. Gentleman arguing this particular case? If Defence Secretaries are misled by their Departments, I do not really understand his faith in leaders of intelligence services and others not being able to hide the truth purely to defend their own Departments.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities.

There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy. Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation.

There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, may I say what a relief it is to see a compromise reached between the Hillsborough families and the Government on the application of the duty of candour to the security services? While I understand the Government’s desire to strike a balance in this area, a carve-out would erode the effectiveness of the Bill. As we have seen on multiple occasions, including in the investigation of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Stakeknife case in Northern Ireland and the Attorney General v. the BBC—the “Beth” case, as it is known—it is vital for public confidence and accountability that there is transparency in cases where there have been failings in the conduct of the security services. In the Attorney General v. the BBC, I note that MI5 was found to have provided false evidence to the courts, and it paid damages to “Beth”, alongside giving an apology, but that was only after repeated interventions by the BBC and the courts. That demonstrates the importance of the duty of candour applying to the intelligence services.

[Tessa Munt]

Can the hon. Member spot the irony in the fact that today, while the Government are considering this legislation, which is designed to prevent public bodies from obstructing the truth, the Ministry of Defence is in the High Court in London, trying very hard to silence the Chinook families by saying that they are out of time in seeking an independent inquiry on why their loved ones were allowed to board a Chinook helicopter that the Ministry of Defence knew was unairworthy, positively dangerous and not to be relied on in any way? There is surely an irony in that. It is absurd. I know that the hon. Member was talking about the intelligence services, but the Bill surely has to cover the Ministry of Defence and how it behaves, too, because it is utterly inappropriate.

[Andy Slaughter]

I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation.

I will make one final comment. Several Members have welcomed, as I do, the huge increase in the provision of legal aid that will come, but for that to be effective, we have to look at legal aid rates and the availability of legal aid practitioners. Simply having the funding available does not ensure that there will be representation and equality of arms, which I think we all wish for.

[Tessa Munt]

My sense is that we could have some equity in the amount of legal aid given to families and individuals fighting big organisations, such as public bodies. If the rates of the specialists and professionals who are supporting the public bodies came down, and matched the rising rate of legal aid for the support of those individuals and families, we might be in a situation where could be some equity. That would make investigation much simpler for the courts and inquests dealing with such cases, because they would have people who understood the process better.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there. In conclusion, this is a landmark piece of legislation, which we should all welcome, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Concerns were raised about candour in relation to health. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for his contribution. We do not disagree with the intent of his new clause 11 and amendment 150. Our concern is that the detail is not necessary on the face of the Bill and that it would be disproportionate to do so. The Bill requires public authorities to set out how a professional duty of candour must be met with clear professional sanctions. We will work with organisations on how best to fulfil those obligations and ensure full implementation.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am afraid I will not. To respond to as many points raised as I can, I do not have time to take interventions.

The Bill is about the duty of candour to an inquiry or investigation, and the onward disclosure of information will be determined by each inquiry, inquest or investigation as to what is appropriate and relevant. I would be eager to meet the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash to discuss what more can be done through the implementation of the Bill and separately to achieve the culture change that we want to see.

Other Members raised the Nottingham maternity review, which I have followed closely, as I have the work of the Government’s maternity adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), because of my experience in Nottingham when I was giving birth to my eldest son in 2014. Each contraction meant that his heartbeat stopped and what began as a normal labour suddenly turned to panic and ended with an emergency caesarean to save his life. I was one of the lucky ones, because I got to take him home. I will always hold in my mind the 500 mothers and babies who suffered potentially avoidable harm or death around that time in Nottingham. The message that we are sending with this legislation is that cover-up culture is over and that women and families must be listened to. Public bodies, including NHS trusts, must be open and candid when things go wrong. We are clear that we will apply the duty of candour to the Leeds and Sussex maternity reviews.

On the national oversight mechanism and the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), we have taken steps to improve transparency in how we respond to inquiry recommendations. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering how the implementation of recommendations resulting from future public inquiries should be scrutinised. We welcome that and will continue to work with the Committee on next steps. The Office of the Chief Coroner is also continuing work to improve access to the prevention of future death reports while the Government seek to strengthen arrangements for responding to the concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology.

On the Independent Public Advocate, I welcome the contribution and work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank my right hon. Friend and the others who have raised this, and I take on my right hon. Friend’s points. Legislation requires that there be a review on the role within 18 months of the IPA being stood up, and that is in train. The Ethics and Integrity Commission will also be developing guidance on the code of ethics and will have a role in monitoring and overseeing it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) raises in his amendments some serious concerns about disinformation and the risk of eroding trust in our institutions and weakening our country. While Back-Bench MPs are not included in the new offence, as they are responsible for scrutinising the decisions of the Government of the day, Parliament does already have processes for determining whether Members have misled the House and has its own arrangements for ensuring truthfulness and accuracy from Members. However, I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend to look at how we strengthen matters in relation to his concerns.

On whistleblowing and amendments 3 and 6, the Bill provides safeguards for sensitive information and whistleblowers, and the code of ethics must contain information on whistleblowing policies. We are actively exploring opportunities for reform, as set out in the anti-corruption strategy 2025, and a consultation on whistleblowing will be launched this summer.

We have heard many contributions about placing water companies under obligations of a code of ethical conduct, and although the code of conduct provisions do not apply to private water companies in England and Wales, the Bill contains a power to extend this. The Government will consult on that in due course.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) raised concerns about the additional work needed and the additional measures coming into force being put in place as soon as possible. We are conscious that families have waited long enough for this law. Putting commencement dates on the face of the Bill could cause practical difficulties, but we are doing all we can to ensure that it is in place as soon as possible.

Members have also spoken about amendments relating to former public officials. To be clear, those individuals will remain subject to the duty of candour, provided that an investigation or inquiry relates to their former role, and the offence of misleading the public will also still apply, even if they have retired.

On subcontractors, the main contractors will be accountable for their subcontractors’ performance. The Government are open to exploring further measures to strengthen accountability and candour through supply chains.

Concerns about journalism have also been raised. The Government have already narrowed the journalism exemptions and made it clear that the offence covers misleading recognised news publishers. Sufficient safeguards are provided through the requirement for consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution can proceed.

I wish to thank a number of people before I conclude. I pay tribute to all those who have shaped the Bill, ensured that it delivers as intended, held us to account and made sure that we got to this point. I thank the families and campaigners for their courage and for sharing their experiences, often at great personal cost. They have challenged successive Governments and worked constructively with us, and without them we would not be here today.

I also thank the Members of this House who have stood alongside the families and campaigners over many years, championing their cause and helping to strengthen this Bill. In particular, I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for all his assistance and expertise on the Government amendments on the security services. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), whose contribution was so powerful. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), whose passion for this matter long predates his return to this House.

Nothing can bring back those who were lost, and we can never undo the suffering that so many families have endured. But what we can and must do is ensure that the truth is never again buried by institutions whose first instinct is to protect themselves. That is what the Bill is designed to combat, and I am incredibly grateful to all involved that we have been able to bring the Bill back before the House.

As Victims Minister, I am determined to see the Bill deliver the lasting cultural change that families have fought for over so many years. I hope that in years to come it will be remembered not only for the duties and offences it creates, but because it helped to change the relationship between the state and those that it exists to serve.

We have listened, and we have acted. We will continue to listen as the Bill makes its way through the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Abolition of common law offence: Northern Ireland

“(1) The offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland is abolished.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—

(a) any act which was done before the coming into force of this section, or

(b) any act which began before the coming into force of this section and continues after its coming into force.

(3) Subsection (1) does not affect—

(a) the liability of any person for an offence other than the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland, or

(b) the civil liability of any person for the tort of misfeasance in public office.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This new clause provides for the abolition of the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

Duty of candour and assistance

Amendments made: 151, page 2, line 25, leave out “likely to be” and insert “that is”.

This amendment clarifies that information must be provided under the duty of candour and assistance if it is relevant to the inquiry or investigation concerned.

Amendment 152, page 2, line 30, leave out “likely to be”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 151.

Amendment proposed: 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is right that community initiatives are at the heart of how we confront knife crime and crime more generally. I credit the boxing gym in her constituency. I know that Dinnington boxing club does great work in my constituency, too, and I have been there on numerous occasions. Just last month we published the youth justice White Paper, and at its heart is ensuring that we involve children’s voices so that our interventions, as policymakers in this place and in government, are tailored to the challenges and issues that children are facing. She is absolutely right, and we are getting on with the job of doing it.

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

13. What steps he is taking to make all court transcripts free for victims.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The Government are committed to greater transparency and access to justice in our courts. Transcripts are an important part of that, and I know that there has been a lot of cross-party campaigning on this issue. Victims of sexual offences and bereaved families of homicide can already request a free copy of sentencing remarks. From spring 2027, eligibility will be extended so that all victims can request them.

[Tessa Munt]

I am particularly keen that this matter is progressed at speed, because the fees for victims who want to get their transcripts are eye-watering. My constituent is a victim of domestic violence and her barrister needs transcripts of her hearing in the family court now to appeal against procedural irregularities and errors in the published judgment, but the transcripts will cost her thousands of pounds. Will the Minister address this gross inequality and waive court transcript fees as soon as she can for all victims, including for the family courts—with the requisite redactions to protect anonymity of the parties—to ensure robust justice, transparency and fairness for all?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend has been consistent in raising that important issue, and we are committed to ensuring sufficient education provision for prisoners. I would gently stress, however, that we can only provide that education if we are able to get prisoners into the classroom. We need to stabilise and get order back into the prison system after the chaos that we inherited, but this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisoners have education and work opportunities on leaving prison.

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

I represent a very rural area, and people have to drive many miles to get to a court. With fuel prices currently so high, why are ordinary citizens reimbursed for jury service at the rate of only 31.4p per mile for travel by car, yet the standard HMRC approved rate is 45p per mile? It does not cover the cost of travel, and penalises those who live in rural areas.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member is a member of the Justice Committee, and she raises an important and practical point. The Government recognise the hugely important civic duty role that jurors play day in, day out across the country, and we will always keep remuneration and travel costs under review. We have heard the question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will tell you what makes me angry, Mr Speaker: it is the fact that the last Government presided over an increase in the number of crimes of violence against women and girls of 37% in just five years. That was not a Government who tackled violence against women and girls. That was not a Government who took it seriously. As for communication and notification, it is this Government who are introducing the victim contact scheme in our Victims and Courts Bill to ensure that victims are notified, which the last Government refused to do. It is this Government who are writing to victims to ensure that they are given information. I will take no lectures about how the last Government tackled these crimes; it is this Government who are getting on with the job.

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

3. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in countries to which foreign national prisoners will be returned on ensuring that prisoners serve the full term of a sentence handed down by the UK courts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

This Government are focused on removing foreign national offenders so that they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer. Strengthening prisoner transfer arrangements is a priority, and we are actively engaging with a number of countries to do that, so that more offenders can be removed and serve their sentences in their home countries.

[Tessa Munt]

I am not sure that that really answers my question. Let me set out the details of what I am asking about.

One of my constituents was murdered by a foreign national, which robbed her mother of her daughter and her mother’s grandsons of their much-loved mother. Her mother is very distressed to discover that the murderer is being repatriated a short while into his sentence, which was over 14 years, at which juncture she will lose what remaining input the family has into his parole arrangements, which was promised to her when the man was sentenced. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents that, as victims, they will not see him released early in the country where he was born? What voice will victims have in situations like that in future?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member raises an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that, where possible, foreign national offenders serve their sentence outside this country. To do so, we have to engage in bilateral negotiations with countries to achieve proper and rigorous prisoner transfer arrangements. That is why I have had discussions with colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Albania and Poland in the last few weeks; indeed, last month we signed a new arrangement with Italy. We are working at pace to ensure that those agreements are as rigorous as possible. On the individual case that she mentions, I am very happy to meet her, and indeed her constituents, to discuss the details.

Court Reporting Data

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.

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

My observation is that surely it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to decide whether the data breach is serious or not, and if the ICO does not have the information it cannot make that judgment. My question is this: when the contract was procured, was there a clause in the specification that prevented the release of personal and sensitive data? If so, is the company in breach of its contract, in which case the aggression should perhaps come from the Government as opposed to their waiting for the company to threaten them with legal action?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is right, in that the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. That is simply irresponsible, and when it came to light, I took the decision—I did not take it lightly, but I certainly remain confident in that decision—to cease giving Courtsdesk access unless and until it, or any other party, showed that it could use that information responsibly. Open justice is very important, but such information should not be shared with an AI company in breach of the agreement that exists with Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is a fine champion for her constituency, and has raised this case with both me and other Ministers on numerous occasions. Baroness Levitt, who is responsible for Parole Board hearings, will meet Ralph Bulger and his legal advisers this afternoon to discuss this very issue, and I am sure she will be able to offer some more substantive answers to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s question. I put on record my thanks to Ralph for his campaign, and am very happy to meet him or anyone else on this issue in due course.

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

There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?

[Jake Richards]

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I am unable to talk about the specifics of that case, but if she writes to me, I will make sure I get back to her with any details I am able to share.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I was going to say that I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he sort of ruined it at the end. Shoplifting is a crime, and the Home Secretary made an announcement earlier this week about ensuring that we prosecute it. There is a presumption against short-term sentencing, but clearly we are not banning short-term sentences; they are vital in lots of cases, particularly in domestic abuse cases and for prolific offenders, which many shoplifters are.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has said that the number of extra prison places created since July 2024 is 2,900, but can he say how many cells have been temporarily or permanently closed due to fire safety concerns and other maintenance issues? Can he also state what his Department anticipates will be the result of the Leveson review? Will the Justice Committee—on which I sit—receive his updated modelling, which includes these reforms, and will he come and speak to the Committee about these things?

[Jake Richards]

I am very happy to come and speak to the Justice Committee as and when invited. The hon. Member raises an important point about fire safety; I do not have the exact figures to hand, but there are definitely issues with fire safety across the prison estate—of course, safety is the primary focus, but that has an effect on capacity and maintenance more generally. I am happy to write to her with those figures. As for the effect of part 1 of Leveson’s report and the forthcoming part 2, the modelling and assessments will be set out as and when the legislation comes before the House, and I am sure they will be sent to the Justice Committee as well.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, who, as the MP for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port, has been a vocal champion for the families at every stage of this process. It has been a privilege to work with him and other colleagues on this directly. He is right. This Bill might colloquially be called the Hillsborough law, and many people outside this place who are not aware of the issues might think it is about a tragic football match that happened 36 years ago, but it is about so much more than that. This Bill will provide the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation to anyone who has been affected by a death in which the state had a role, and it will be non-means-tested legal aid for the first time ever.

The Bill will also ensure that all public servants and authorities are bound by a legal and criminalised duty of candour. It will bring in new criminal offences of misleading the public and of misconduct in public office. This will be a truly landmark Bill that will change the culture of British life for the better, forever. That is what is at stake here. That is why this Bill is so important, and we are committed to bringing it forward as soon as possible, but we need to get it right for everyone. That is what the Government are committed to doing.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she is a woman on a mission, and let us hope that we get to the end of this before terribly long. We know that the Government are struggling with accepting the families’ wish that we should pick up amendment 23 and its consequential amendments. I am mystified about the business of a balance being struck between intelligence services personnel being transparent and the protection of national security, because my understanding was that we already had that balance; national security is safeguarded by the fact that in any inquiry, the release of sensitive information happens in closed session, via a High Court judge.

Schedule 1 includes a carve-out for the intelligence and security services, who are proven not to have told the truth. That is a dreadful shame. I am told that we have to trust what is said, but that seems entirely inappropriate, as the heads of the security services have unfortunately shown themselves not to be trustworthy. People talk about our allies being able to trust us, but if the heads of the security services are lying, I do not know how our allies are meant to trust us. Will the Minister please tell us what the problem is with amendment 23? It has been put together by Pete Wetherby, Elkan and others, and the families support it. Why can we not just agree to it?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her service on the Public Bill Committee. Her thoughtful contributions there have made the Bill better. I will cite the great Pete Wetherby KC now at this Dispatch Box, and I hope I do him justice: there is no balance to be struck on national security, because national security should always come first. That is Pete Wetherby’s position, that is the families’ position, and that is the Government’s position. The Government always have to protect national security, and we will always do that, but the families have a right to the truth. I want to restate that there is no carve-out in this Bill for the intelligence services. They will be bound by a legal duty of candour, and it will apply to individual agents. All we need to do is find the mechanism by which that information is passed on to an investigation or inquiry. We are working at pace with the intelligence services and the families to find a way forward. This is very complex. It sounds simple, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is not. I am a woman on a mission, and I am determined to do this as soon as possible, but we need to get it right, and that is what this Government will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Mediation is hugely successful, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to talk to the sector about this issue. I will update him in the coming weeks.

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

I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Lady is right: I am a woman on a mission. I will meet her early in the new year, ahead of Report, to discuss her amendments and the Bill’s progress through the House.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response and the clarity that she has added. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 11, page 10, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 5.

Amendment 53, in clause 11, page 10, line 33, at end insert—

“’journalism’ means articles for media outlets and news sites. It does not extend to press statements, commentary and social media posts.”

[Tessa Munt]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 30 removes the exemption for journalism from the offence of misleading the public, showing that no one, including journalists or public officials writing in a journalistic capacity—including in internal newsletters—can avoid accountability for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to close the loophole that might allow public officials to evade that accountability by presenting misleading information under the guise of journalism. The rationale is to strengthen public trust in Government communications, ensure consistency in applying the law regardless of the medium used, and prevent deliberate attempts to mislead the public through media channels.

The amendment responds to various concerns raised by accountability campaigners, transparency advocates and parliamentary scrutiny bodies that the exemption could be exploited, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the offence. We have seen with cases that we heard about last Thursday when the Committee took evidence, and with some cases that we discussed on Tuesday, that we cannot ignore the damaging role the media has played in many situations. Some of those examples shed light on public servants using the media to set the narrative, with some of the most awful and damaging consequences for people’s lives and for shedding light on the truth.

We know that—appallingly—the media has been used to set the narrative. With amendment 30, we are thinking about the public and how they perceive this place in particular, and the power structures that move around it. The sense is that legitimacy is key.

[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.

[The Chair]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that Members are allowed to speak more than once, but that was an intervention.

[Tessa Munt]

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

[Seamus Logan]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 5, Clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert “by—

(i) a recognised news publisher, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 56 of that Act), or

(ii) a person in the course of working for such a publisher.” .—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment clarifies that the journalism exemption from the offence of misleading the public only applies to media entities and those that work for them.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 2, clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—

“(10) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director for Public Prosecutions.”

This amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to clarify that for the shadow Minister.

[Tessa Munt]

I previously asked for some clarity on coroners. I accept the position on His Majesty’s chief coroner, and the Minister confirmed about His Majesty’s area coroner. I presume senior coroners are also included in that remit, but I want to be very clear, because they are the people who very often see exactly what is happening on the ground.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes, I can confirm that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Holders of public office

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is to encourage good behaviour. It is to encourage public authorities to not come armed with many barristers, and to discourage the David and Goliath story that we have heard far too many times.

On the shadow Minister’s point about individuals within a public authority potentially not being represented, that is not something that we want to curtail. For example, a frontline healthcare worker could have representation via their union and the public authority could have representation. This is about making sure that the family has adequate legal representation too. I will come back to his other points after I take another intervention.

[Tessa Munt]

Does the Minister feel that this provision might actually lead to some clarity about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on defending themselves and their position, and the actions that they may have taken? It is almost impossible to get them to cough up. They just say, “Oh, well, it’s business as usual—that’s what we always do.” I am hoping that this measure will give clarity.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Lady is bang on the money, literally. I cannot tell her how frustrating it has been as a Minister trying to figure out a way forward on this—trying to figure out the cost to the public purse and the taxpayer—when we do not have that data. This will enable us to have the data on exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and Government Departments on legal aid.

This is taxpayers’ money. We heard evidence from the bereaved families that one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for them was that they as taxpayers were funding the legal support for the public authorities that were accused of having a hand in the death of their loved one. That is totally perverse and unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Tessa Munt]

I have had discussions with the Minister about the Bill’s relationship with the families of those who are deceased, and I am rather hopeful that she will consider new clause 5. It has been implied that people who are seriously injured or survivors are included in the Bill, but I would like to be very specific about that particular group. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who are seriously injured but are survivors have equal access to legal support, without means testing, as bereaved families when participating in inquests, inquiries, investigations and independent panels. Many survivors face really complex legal processes when dealing with trauma, and without non-means-tested legal aid they may be unable to engage effectively or have their interests represented. Extending legal aid to that group of people would remove financial barriers, ensure meaningful participation opportunities for them, and help to ensure that inquiries and inquests—in which I have been involved myself—can fully examine the conduct of public bodies and public officials, and promote accountability and justice. Will the Minister please address that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As the hon. Member said, her new clause 5 seeks to extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.

The Bill’s expansion of legal aid ensures that it is available to bereaved families in an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. It follows that a seriously injured survivor who is also a family member of the deceased will already be able to apply for legal aid under the Bill. Survivors of serious incidents are more likely to have active participation in an inquiry into what has happened more generally than in an inquest, where the coroner is seeking to determine facts around a death. However, injured survivors can apply for legal help and advocacy at inquests via the exceptional case funding scheme. Applicants may be eligible for that where not providing legal services would breach, or risk breaching, the applicant’s rights under the European convention on human rights. Alternatively, survivors may work with family members of the deceased receiving legal aid to contribute to the instruction of legally aided lawyers.

Section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 already gives the chair a specific power to award publicly funded legal representation to individuals or organisations involved in an inquiry, subject to the conditions set out by the sponsoring Minister. In recent inquiries, such as the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the Grenfell inquiry, chairs have used that power to ensure that all core participants are funded where that is fair, necessary and proportionate. It is therefore not necessary to expand the scope of civil legal aid to inquiries.

I also note that new clause 5 raises a significant practical and definitional challenge: it does not set out what constitutes “reasonable grounds for believing” that the matter relates to a public authority’s conduct, which would be necessary in order to make regulations implementing the measure and for operationalisation. It could also draw the scope of legal aid more widely than intended, such as by including the perpetrators of terrorist attacks.

In summary, the new clause is unnecessary in the light of existing routes to access legal help and advocacy. It would duplicate provisions already available for inquiries under the Inquiries Act by introducing legal aid for core participants for the first time, and, in doing so, would introduce complexities about who would fund those legal costs. That could lead to delays and make the scheme harder to operationalise and manage. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills not to move the new clause.

[Tessa Munt]

I seek a little clarity. The Minister made reference to somebody who is seriously injured. They might be part of the proceedings as a friend of the family of somebody who has died. We have seen fairly recently people being injured in a terrorist attack in which colleagues around them have died. They might have something very specific to add, but they might not be a friend of the family. I want to be really clear whether, if somebody was present and seriously injured, and had something to add, but was a colleague and not a family member, there would be any barrier to them being considered as helpful to the family in an inquest or investigation.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I recognise that, and I will happily engage with the hon. Lady further to ensure that we have no gaps.

[Tessa Munt]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert

“(d) insert—

‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”.

This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted.

Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause 1

Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—

(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.

(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.

(2) The report must assess—

(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.

(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.

(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”—(Ian Byrne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston cannot be here to move the motion because of her father’s illness. She really wanted to be here, and I fully support the new clause, so I am going to speak on her behalf.

New clause 1 proposes a post-legislative assessment, within 12 months of the passing of the Act, of how its provisions on the duty of candour and equality of arms are increasing public confidence in public authorities. Specifically, it would examine whether the internal processes of public authorities are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures as they first arise after major incidents. The assessment would also consider the role of the independent public advocate in evaluating how public authorities respond to affected individuals and bereaved families following such incidents.

The report would have to explore whether the powers of the independent public advocate should be extended to facilitate the gathering of information to support inquiries and investigations, to ensure that public authorities and officials act in accordance with the duty of candour. It would also have to examine the case for empowering the independent public advocate to instigate an independent panel, similar to the Hillsborough independent panel, and assess the costs compared with non-statutory and statutory inquiries.

The new clause would ensure that, soon after the Act comes into force, Parliament would receive a clear, evidence-based assessment of whether it is delivering on its aims, and whether the role of the independent public advocate should be strengthened to secure faster truth, greater transparency, and better support for bereaved families after major incidents.

When Hillsborough Law Now launched in 2022, it not only supported the measures in the Bill but called for the establishment of an independent public advocate with powers to set up independent panels like the Hillsborough independent panel. For more than two decades, the legal system failed to deliver truth or justice to the Hillsborough families. In some cases, it even facilitated the propagation of a false narrative, including by officers named in the IOPC report published this week.

It was the Hillsborough independent panel, which was established in 2009 and reported in 2012, that finally set the record straight. I wholeheartedly support that statement. Its process was non-legal, document-based and grounded in transparency rather than adversarial proceedings. In two years it achieved what the legal system had failed to do in 24. One of the key lessons of Hillsborough is that the legal system can fail. The two witnesses, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, spoke powerfully on behalf of this new clause, and the need to look at how panels in the style of the Hillsborough independent panel can help to achieve justice. I want to put on record that I thought they spoke really eloquently. We cannot claim to have learned the lessons fully unless we provide bereaved families with access to a similar process at an earlier stage.

The Public Advocate Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston in the Commons in 2016 and by Lord Wills in the Lords in 2014, set out to create an independent public advocate with meaningful powers, including the authority to instigate independent panels akin to the Hillsborough independent panel. The intention was to give bereaved families a route to truth and transparency at an early stage, and to ensure that public authorities could be held to account quickly and that failures in process could be addressed before they became entrenched.

However, the office of the independent public advocate, as currently established under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, does not yet carry the powers originally envisaged, as the independent public advocate outlined in last Thursday’s evidence session. I think she is open to having more powers to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston is looking to set out with the new clause. As it stands, the office of the IPA lacks the statutory authority to gather evidence from those affected, and it cannot initiate independent panels to collate information and assess public authorities’ actions.

I cannot say it strongly enough: the Hillsborough independent panel uncovered what happened at Hillsborough because it had access to the police documents and the reports, so it could see the scale of how some police officers had changed the evidence of those who were at Hillsborough. I include in that my own father, whose report of his experience at Hillsborough was changed beyond all recognition. When he eventually saw what the police had put down for him, it caused him great distress, along with many others. What my right hon. Friend has outlined in the new clause is so important, and without the powers in it the advocate cannot replicate the approach that finally succeeded in the case of Hillsborough, when transparency, document disclosure and independent oversight finally brought truth, in a fraction of the time that the legal system had taken.

The gap in the powers has real consequences today for families who experience disasters or major public incidents. If we are serious about learning the lessons from Hillsborough and other tragedies, which I believe we are, we need to ensure that the independent public advocate has the appropriate authority and resources to act effectively, and that Parliament can scrutinise whether the office is delivering on its intended purpose. New clause 1 would provide for that, and I support it fully. I urge the Minister to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston laid out in the new clause, and to discuss how we move forward on it.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of some of the sentiment and principle of the new clause, particularly subsection (1)(a) on understanding the impact of the provisions. As discussed, some of this is very novel and we will not always be sure how it pans out. I am not necessarily convinced that “within 12 months” is the right timescale. Thankfully, these things do not happen that often, in the scheme of things, and I am not sure that 12 months is quite enough time to see whether the new system has bedded in, and for there to be examples that we can review. I do not support the timetable, then, but it is important that the Government have a clear strategy for assessing and understanding how everything works in practice.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

I welcome the Minister’s response and the offer of continuing talks with my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston.

[Tessa Munt]

I would be grateful if the Minister could include me in those discussions, because I am very keen that we get this right.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before we proceed, we have reached a witching hour. I am prepared, as are the officials, to see this through, provided that we do not engage in long debate. Let me be absolutely clear: these are important and serious issues and there is no question of the debate being curtailed. There is plenty of time. But if it is possible to expedite things in a manner that means Members do not have to come back later this afternoon, as Chair I am prepared to do that. We will see how we get on.

[Tessa Munt]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I have not a clue where I am—have I missed amendment 41?

[The Chair]

No, you are all right.

Clause 19

Crown application

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

[Alex Davies-Jones]

In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that the clauses contain standard provisions around Crown application. They confer powers to make consequential amendments as set out in the Bill’s regulation-making powers, they provide definitions throughout the Bill and they set out its territorial extent. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commencement

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 22, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—

“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”

This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 25 and 26 stand part.

[Tessa Munt]

The amendment seeks to clarify that the Act should come into force straight away, except for clauses 9, 10 and 18, which require the provision of codes or guidance. I seek purely to ensure that the Hillsborough law comes into force as soon as possible, as families have been waiting so many years for justice.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady and all Committee members for ensuring that our feet are held to the fire on our plans for implementation. We agree that the families have been waiting far too long and deserve implementation as swiftly as possible.

Amendment 41 seeks to amend the commencement provision in clause 25. It would provide that the Bill, with the exceptions of clauses 9, 10 and 18, would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Clauses 9, 10 and 18 would then automatically come into force six months following Royal Assent. As I said, we agree that the families have waited long enough. The public deserve change and renewed confidence in the services that exist to protect and serve them.

Let me be clear: we will bring the measures into force as soon as is reasonably practical. However, we cannot prescribe commencement on the fact of the Bill. That is not the right approach and would create practical difficulties. Ultimately, implementing the legislation without the necessary frameworks and arrangements in place could result in unintended consequences and difficulties that cause further distress and disappointment. By retaining the power to commence regulations, steps can be taken to ensure a smooth transition, so that the provisions achieve their objective without negatively impacting ongoing proceedings.

I reassure the hon. Lady and all Committee members that we are not dragging our feet. We want to implement the Bill as swiftly as possible, and we will do so. We are working at pace to facilitate market readiness to expand legal aid rapidly. We are also working with coroner services to help them to prepare for the effects of an increase in the number of lawyers who will appear at inquests.

In addition, the major increase in demand will mean that we also need to look at making significant changes to the Legal Aid Agency’s operational and digital systems. I remind Members that this comes at a time when the agency is recovering from a major cyber incident, with all digital systems yet to be fully restored. Without sufficient time for the legal aid market and the Legal Aid Agency to prepare, there is a risk that bereaved families will be unable to find legal aid lawyers or to access legal aid funding at inquests, which could be delayed as a consequence. We do not want that. Our priority is to deliver the reforms as soon as possible while ensuring that the system is equipped to provide specialist advice to bereaved families from day one.

None the less, we recognise that the Hillsborough families, along with the wider public, deserve clarity on when the Bill will come into force, which is why, very soon, we will set out a clear plan, including the timelines for implementation and for the commencement of the Bill as a whole. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 25 sets out when the Act will come into force. Part 5 of the Bill, which includes the technical provisions, including on regulation-making powers and territorial extent, will take effect immediately. The other parts of the Bill will come into force on a date specified by the relevant authority in regulations. I reaffirm that we will not delay bringing the Bill into force, and I look forward to updating the House very soon on the planned timeline for its implementation. Clause 26 simply provides the short title of the legislation. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Tessa Munt]

I accept the Minister’s assurance that she is going to get her skates on, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I would appreciate the Committee indulging me briefly, because it is customary at this point to say a few brief words to mark the end of Committee deliberations. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, and I pay tribute to all the Members who have served on this really important and powerful Bill Committee. The Bill is better for having been scrutinised by them all, so I thank them.

I thank you, Sir Roger, for keeping us in very good order, especially at times when we all lost where we were. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale, on her birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank the Clerks. I want to say a huge thank you to the brilliant team at the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. That includes, but is not limited to, our officials Nikki Jones, Emily Dunn, Tom Blackburn, Sam Wright, May Wong, Sam Dayan, Georgina Rood, Terry Davies, Jonny Fitzpatrick, Catriona MacDonald, Naomi Sephton, John Smith, James Parker, Rachel Boylin and Rachel Bennion —both my Rachels. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to very soon.