Lords Chamber

Monday 12th October 2026

(began 8 hours, 44 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:43
15:43
15:44
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to move amendment. >> I rise to move amendment. >> One in my name and declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. In my short time in your Lordships House, I've developed a rule of thumb. When a Bill is brought forward in response to a national outcry over a terrible tragedy, it often goes far beyond what's needed to prevent that tragedy happening again. And this bill is one such example. I'm sure we'll come to the other shortcomings of the bill in due course, but this amendment addresses the purpose of the act as set out in clause one, the purpose of the act, it says, is to ensure that public authorities and public officials, quote, at all times perform their functions in the public interest, unquote, all their functions at all times.

Surely this cast the net too widely, particularly as the public interest is nowhere defined in the bill. Let me give a practical example of an unintended consequence this could have, and I'm indebted to my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wickham for suggesting this scenario. Imagine a conservative government elected on a manifesto commitment to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. The Prime Minister instructs the Cabinet Secretary to begin the process of preparing notice of withdrawal under article 58.

Let's assume there's no debate about whether that instruction is lawful. In my hypothetical example, that issue is settled, but the Cabinet secretary refuses to carry out the instruction because they believe that leaving the convention is contrary to the public interest. And incidentally, they're also concerned that if they carry out the instruction, they could face a slew of private prosecutions led by Jolyon Maugham, for acting in a way that is, quote, seriously improper, unquote, as per clause 13. I know private prosecutions require DPP consent, but who's to say a Labour appointed DPP wouldn't give consent to a private prosecution of a Cabinet secretary who helps a conservative government leave the EC? And if they refused consent, Jolyon Maugham would, of course, jail that decision and he would point to clause one when seeking permission from the High Court, arguing that seriously improper conduct should be understood with reference to the requirement in clause one to always act in the public interest.

In any event, in this scenario, the Cabinet Secretary point blank, refuses to carry out the instruction. Faced with this refusal, the Prime Minister makes it clear that unless it is carried out, the Cabinet Secretary will be dismissed for gross misconduct under the law as it stands today, that would settle the matter. The Civil Service Code is clear. Officials carry out Ministers lawful instructions, whatever their personal views. But once this bill is on the statute book, the Cabinet secretary could say refusing a reasonable instruction may be misconduct.

Prime Minister, but Parliament has insisted that I perform my functions in the public interest at all times, an instruction to act contrary to the public interest cannot be reasonable. Therefore, my refusal to carry out this instruction is not misconduct, let alone gross misconduct. Of course, the Prime Minister could sack the Cabinet secretary nevertheless, but that would be more risky once this bill becomes law, because the former official would, in those circumstances, have a stronger claim for unfair dismissal in an employment tribunal.

Would the claim succeed? Maybe. Maybe not. An employment tribunal might well conclude that the instruction was reasonable, i.e. not contrary to the public interest, although that's surely a matter for the electorate, not a judge or a judicial panel. But that's not the point. The point is that clause one would give the sacked official an arguable case. Thanks to clause one. The claim would be less likely to be struck out at a preliminary hearing than it would be at present. It would very probably proceed to a full hearing at which a tribunal would be invited to rule on whether the elected government Central Manifesto commitment was in the public interest.

In all likelihood, my Lords, the government would settle and we know roughly what that would cost the going rate for a negotiated departure of a Cabinet secretary is now approaching £1 million, perhaps more in due course, since the Employment Rights Act will remove the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal from the 1st of January next year. And who's to say the Prime Minister would be able to find a replacement willing to carry out the instruction, particularly with the threat of a private prosecution looming over their heads? I expect the noble Lords Minister to say two things in response.

First, that a purpose clause does not by itself impose any duty on anyone but courts and tribunals construe statutes, purposively, and a purpose clause is one of the places they look to discern Parliament's purpose, particularly where the operative provisions turn on open ended words like proper, reasonable and seriously improper. Second, the noble law. The Minister may say that the Civil Service Code already requires officials to obey lawful instructions. Quite so. Then the government should have no difficulty confirming that nothing in clause one qualifies the code, which is all my amendment would do if the government genuinely believes clause one creates no freestanding duty, then accepting this amendment costs it nothing.

If the. If the Minister will not accept it. I ask for an assurance. When the noble Lord responds that nothing in clause one imposes a duty on any official justifies them departing from a lawful ministerial instruction or in any way qualifies the Civil Service Code. My Lords voters are not disillusioned with politicians because they're corrupt. They're disillusioned because
15:51
15:51
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause one, page two. Line 11 at cert at end. Insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. I'm very grateful. To the noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the noble Lord. I thank Lord Young of Acton for his introduction to his amendment. his introduction to his amendment. I think I'm probably not alone in being slightly surprised by his being slightly surprised by his interpretation of what the effect of the bill might be, because my reading of the bill absolutely reading of the bill absolutely demonstrates that wherever particular somebody who is caught by the bill, which would include the Cabinet Secretary and other senior officials or chief executives of organisations fulfilling public duties, is that it's very clear where those boundaries are.

So in terms of inquiries under clause five, it talks about the condition mentioned in subsection two is that the act that has been carried out must have departed significantly from what is to be expected in the proper exercise of that person's function as a public authority or public as a public authority or public official. In clause 13 on. Over again, seriously improper acts. It talks there about the person who holds public office, commits an offence if and it goes through using benefit or they ought.

They know. Or they ought to know that doing so is seriously improper act, which I think the noble Lord referred to in his own contribution. But it then goes on to explain exactly how that would work. And I think the idea that random members of the public might start suing the Cabinet secretary because they disagree with what he's done, or, conversely, with what a politician may have done and the Cabinet secretary may have refused to do, is different. This is predicated on malfeasance by individuals, and that is for everybody who is caught by this bill, whether they are senior politicians, Ministers, whether they are senior officials.

So I would be very concerned if this amendment proceeded further. I I'm sure that the noble or the Minister will have a response. But from my perspective, everything that the noble Lord has said to me just does not ring true of the detail of the bill that we're about to examine at Committee.
15:53
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. As we begin. >> Committee on this important. >> And indeed. Complex bill, may I say briefly that I do look forward say briefly that I do look forward to working with the noble Lord, the Minister, who has already taken great care to engage with the official opposition and indeed noble Lords across the chamber, and I hope that that constructive engagement will continue as we scrutinise the Bill in committee stages. This is clearly an important Bill which was promised in the Labour Party's manifesto, and we will continue to work with the government to scrutinise the Bill in detail, and although we may have concerns about the approach taken by the government, we recognise that the Bill is covered by the Salisbury Convention and, perhaps more importantly, we recognise the immense pain felt by the Hillsborough families who have waited far too long to get to this point and recognising that important context, we will move as quickly as possible in our work to improve the bill.

Now, Lord, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for moving his amendment, which is making a number of very specific points, which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to clearly in his response. My noble friend amendment would clarify that the effect of the public interest test in clause one of this Bill is limited in its legal effect to the proper understanding of this purpose of the bill, rather than, for example, imposing a wider duty on public officials to abide by a public interest test or the creation of a power for public authorities and officials to act otherwise than on a lawful instruction or direction that had been given to them.

And so I would hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will rule out the possibility that clause one creates a public interest standard against which the conduct of a public authority or official is judged, except in respect of the provisions of the Bill. And I think my Noble Friends amendment speaks to recent instances where Ministers and former Ministers of the Crown have felt that their instructions to officials have not been always carried out in a timely way, or indeed, in some cases at all.

The core principle which has been mentioned and which should be reinforced, is that advisers advise and Ministers decide, and I hope the noble Lord, the Minister can agree with me with regard to that, and if so, I think it follows that he should be able to respond to the concerns of my noble friend, Lord Acton. Lord Young of Acton. I apologise by categorically ruling out the possibility that clause one creates a wide cross-government public interest test, which would allow public authorities or officials to ignore lawful instructions or directions from a Minister and perhaps the noble Lord.

The Minister could begin his response by giving that categoric assurance.
15:57
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I would like to join with the noble and learned Lord with the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie in thanking all noble Lords who've worked with me over the recess on. On this bill you can the recess on. On this bill you can we can see from the number of amendments and carefully careful way they've been thought out, that people have put a lot of time and effort into that. I'm very grateful for that, and I'm very grateful, again, as the noble Lord Keen said, to be taking this forward because this bill has been a long time coming, and the families have been waiting for it for a long time.

So we we I'm glad we're going moving at some pace. And of course, I absolutely do give the undertaking that the noble and learned Lord Keen asked for, that we should continue in the constructive and collaborative way that we have thus far. My Lords, I would like to provide the noble Lord Lord Young of Acton with reassurance that clause one is the purpose clause and does not have any legal effect in and of itself, separate from the other provisions in the Bill.

Its purpose is designed to set out the overarching intention behind the Bill, and to explain how the substantive provisions of the Bill work together to achieve that intention. To that extent, the Lord Alli Lord Jones first prediction was correct. As is often the case with purpose clauses, it provides context for the Bill as a whole. The legal rights, duties and obligations created by the Bill are found in its operative provisions, not in clause one itself. In this context, acting in the public interest really means fulfilling the obligations and duties contained in the remainder of the bill, and I hope that addresses the specific point that the noble and learned Lord Keen put to me, and that those that arise from it, it means being candid and transparent at inquiries and investigations.

There was much speculation about various hypotheses in the noble Lord, Lord Young's comments, but we are quite clear about the specific context in which this bill will apply and ensuring that those working for public authorities adhere to the codes of ethics required by the Bill, which we shall come on to later in the Committee stage. The government can consider, therefore, considers that the existing drafting already achieves the intended objective of the clause. The purpose clause provides a clear description of the principles that underpin the Bill, while leaving the substantive provisions, including to give effect to those principles, including with reference to the public interest.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for giving way. Can the noble, the Minister, just explicitly assure the House that explicitly assure the House that nothing in clause one qualifies the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Civil Service Code? I. I'm sure the noble Lord will understand. I don't want to do that understand. I don't want to do that without. Without getting some advice. My official advice certainly, certainly come back to him on it. The Civil Service Code is obviously a very specific thing along with the ministerial code. But as I've said, the the purpose clause does not define the the specific requirements of the bill. It is the substance of the bill. I'm very happy to to get get good advice.

I don't want to to say things I might have to correct. But as I say, I'm not. I don't see any particular issues with the Civil Service code, but. But I'll happily check. And for the reasons I've given in relation to the overall purpose clause, I hope that the noble Lord will at this stage be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
16:01
16:01
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hillsborough Law and Protect My Lords. This group of amendment tackles a crucial weakness in the tackles a crucial weakness in the Bill. Put very simply, those who speak out with candour, most of us speak out with candour, most of us call them whistleblowers must be safe from retaliation and must be sure that credible information will sure that credible information will be investigated. That sounds obvious and simple, but it is very obvious and simple, but it is very far from the current reality, and this bill does nothing significant to correct it.

The current whistleblowing framework set in the Public Interest Disclosure Act is hopelessly inadequate. First, it does not ensure investigation. Worse, public authorities and private companies, together with their legal teams, have worked out how to weaponise Peter to silence whistleblowers. Peter seems to offer a way for a whistleblower to make confidential disclosures, but in reality, they are often easily identified and any effective protection is negated under Peter workers. And it remains, despite some expansion, a narrow definition.

Those who speak out and become victims of retaliation can go to employment tribunal for redress. That is redress, not protection, but legal support in tribunal costs as much as £30,000. Just for a preliminary hearing. The employers are presumed to have acted properly, so whistleblowers must prove with hard data that their firing was related to whistleblower whistleblowing. It's often impossible to access that hard data cases are usually dragged out for years. While the whistleblower has no job, faces in formal blacklisting, loses their home, and often loses their family.

No wonder so many settle and are silenced by NDAs or simply walk away. No wonder investigations of wrongdoing languish while the focus is on destroying the whistleblower. My amendment seeks to tackle that, as do excellent amendments from Lord Wills and Baroness Featherstone for Report stage. I anticipate that we will consolidate, but today will underscore the seriousness and the dreadful breadth of the issue. If we do not solve it, at least for public authorities, we will undermine this.

Excellent bill. Now, my amendments in clause two assert that a public authority or official must not, subject to whistleblower, to detriment because of their whistleblowing. In clause five, my amendment makes it an offence for a person to impede or retaliate against or victimise a whistleblower for whistleblowing after clause seven, my amendment voids any part of an NDA that prevents a person from assisting an investigation or inquiry. My amendment in clause ten tries to put some iron into the Code of Ethical Conduct to get it to require investigation and protection from detriment.

After clause ten, my amendments create a duty to investigate and to prevent retaliation, and after clause 20 I require a review. Now, all of those amendments I have listed, and I'm not going to read them out in detail, because this House has the list of Marshall Marshall this before it. But all of those amendments I have listed are, frankly complete no brainers. They require a change in the rules and a change in mindset with consequences if it doesn't happen. But they set up no new bodies or require reorganisation.

That's the easy stuff. But in my later amendments, I've inserted the most extensive of my proposals to create for public authorities an independent office of the whistleblower. And I thank Lord Wills, a determined campaigner, on these issues, for adding his name. My last amendment in this group would require the office to set in place mechanisms to enable civil servants to make disclosures to an independent body outside of their department, if they believe the department has failed to investigate a disclosure properly.

Now, let me explain. The office of the whistleblower. This is designed to be a hub of expertise with spokes to the relevant public authorities, regulators and enforcement agencies for whom it sets standards, provides expert support, ensures good communication and can identify potential concerns as a safe place to make a disclosure. It's able to give clarity and confidence to whistleblowers. It has the capacity for the proper triage of incoming information, so that insubstantial or mischievous reports are set aside, but credible concerns are identified and investigated by the right body.

Crucially, it has a powerful role in taking action to prevent detriment or requiring remedy if a detriment has occurred. When I talk to most regulators, they almost sigh with relief at the thought of an expert body to turn to. Enforcement agencies light up at the potential stream of key information. While whistleblowers
16:07
None Portrait Amendment:2 Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-

lose much of their fear. It will never be a panacea. But it's a game never be a panacea. But it's a game changer for true transparency, safety for whistleblowers, and for safety for whistleblowers, and for active investigation. And the hub structure I described is key. In the USA, where there are multiple offices of the whistleblower, I'm always urged not to make the same mistake of setting up multiple offices, causing confusion and duplication.

And the office is not a rival to other bodies like regulators or enforcement agencies. It complements what they do and provides for a role that most organisations struggle to cope with. Let me take on the challenge that it costs money it does upfront, but go to the U. S, A and you will find that offices of the whistleblower have been so successful in bringing wrongdoing to justice that the CFTC alone, since 2014, has collected more than 5.1 billion in monetary sanctions, mostly paid on to the Treasury, and that includes no calculation of the benefits, including financial, of the deterrent effect or of stopping wrongdoing before it escalates.

In light of this, the Minister will understand my dismay when the ethics code in clause ten, section five, is held up as the government's answer. This section sets out what information a public Authorities ethics code must contain on whistleblowing processes. I doubt there is a single body in any public authority in most private bodies, for that matter, which do not already meet the requirements of this section and have done so for years. I understand that the government takes the view that the code of ethics will gradually, over time, change the culture to one where speaking out is safe.

But I don't think all those who fought so hard for this bill will like the idea of waiting a decade for a gradual nudge to succeed. Speaking at Second Reading, the Minister took the position that this bill need not do more on this issue because a broader whistleblowing framework will be consulted on by best. That same department, in its earlier persona, has already carried out a lengthy review, and it resulted in absolutely no action at all. A new consultation was issued today.

I've only had a chance to skim it, but I can say that it has not a word on either investigation or about detriment or retaliation against whistleblowers. It opposes an office of the whistleblower, which it fails to describe in any way that anyone would recognise who read my amendment here, or the private member's bill, which is more extensive, it does consult on a reward scheme for the Serious Fraud Office, which has potential but frankly affects very few cases.

Now I'm utterly dismayed, but not surprised. I think it's important to understand that BIS stakeholders and the people it listens to are typically commercial businesses, not the public authorities or campaigning people. Some businesses do whistleblowing well, typically following their own procedures. They don't need any instruction for government. They do it because they think it's important. But frankly, the majority of commercial businesses want a scheme where they can be Goliath to a whistleblowers, David, where the protections are very narrow, where money buys the cases and legal giants to wear down a hapless whistleblower, and where a whistleblower submits and becomes silent, I am sure that its stakeholders have said to BIS that are made arguments like regulatory burden.

It's all about grievances. It will cost too much, all of which are actually untrue. And it can be demonstrated by looking at the US and now by radical changes in the U. E EU, which are starting to yield the same kind of results that we've seen in the United States. My Lords, I cannot sit down today without naming Simon Andrews. He was the whistleblower whose courageous uncovering of evidence of financial embezzlement led in the USA to severe financial penalties against a major international finance firm and ongoing investigations of the involvement of major public figures with Epstein in the UK.

And he's a British citizen and active in the UK. In the UK, his material was essentially ignored. His battle for justice effectively ruined him both financially and personally. In September, he took his own life. He had been dealing with retaliation for over ten years. I have met Simon and people close to me were very engaged in trying to support him. He is far from the first whistleblower to be destroyed by the system, and I have spoken to many, as has anyone else who is engaged around this issue.

My Lords, we cannot go on as we are and look the British public in the face. Protect whistleblowers, investigate credible disclosures. It's not rocket science. It is a way to halt wrongdoing early and above all, to deter wrongdoing. And it's time to take a stand. And I suggest we use the opportunity of this bill to do so.
16:13
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Clause two, page 220 after for insert for a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Brinton. And the purpose of this amendment is quite simple. When a public authority receives credible information that something seriously wrong is happening, it seriously wrong is happening, it should have a duty to do something about it. And that may sound about it. And that may sound obvious, but we know from some of the worst scandals of recent years that that doesn't always happen.

In fact, rarely happens in the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal, failures surrounding Jimmy Savile. There were warnings, concerns and evidence that things were going badly wrong. Yet time and time again, opportunities to investigate and act were missed. And very often the problem wasn't that nobody knew it was. The people who knew or should have known failed to do anything effective about it. Sometimes concerns were dismissed. Sometimes they were passed from one person to another.

Sometimes the reputation of the institution seemed to matter more than the people being harmed. And this amendment is intended to address that problem. It would require public authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure that credible information about serious wrongdoing, systemic failure or a continuing risk of harm is properly considered, investigated where appropriate, and acted upon. It also makes clear that those responsible for the management or governance of an authority have a responsibility to see that this actually happens.

Now, obviously, I'm not suggesting that every complaint should automatically trigger a major investigation, or that every allegation should be treated as proven. The amendment deliberately refers to reasonable steps and to investigation where appropriate. But I do think we need to get away from a situation where serious warnings can be ignored. Multiple warnings can be ignored, buried or simply passed around until everyone assumes they are somebody else's responsibility. And there is, of course, an important limitation to this amendment.

As drafted. It relates to failures to comply with duties under this bill, rather than creating a general duty to act on every form of serious wrongdoing, I would have preferred it to go much further. But even within that narrower scope, I believe it addresses an important gap. The bill is about changing the way that public authorities behave when things go wrong, and that means not only being honest about what has happened, but actually doing something about it. When there is credible evidence of a problem.

I would be very interested to hear whether the Minister agrees that there should be a clear responsibility to act on such information, and, if so, whether the government believes the Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where? Please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please do you have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please do you have. By popular acclaim. I support all the amendments. In this group. My Lords, which. Is an unusual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is an unusual. Thing, and I won't list them all in the interest of avoiding tedium. My Lords, over the years I have met
16:16
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, over the years I have met and listened to harrowing tales from many whistleblowers. Our current legal provisions to protect them and to ensure action on what they reveal are simply inadequate. As the eloquent speech of Baroness Kramer, and I'm sure others who will follow have highlighted, it's important to remember, my Lords, that whistleblowers often start as people trying to help, trying to right a wrong, trying to improve the organisation they work for, but they are almost always marginalised or worse, and the issues raised are ignored or not addressed.

Crucial for me among these amendments, which I strongly support are Baroness the noble Baroness Kramer 42 and 52, which require organisations to act on what whistleblower whistleblowers uncover. Amendment 54 from the noble Lord Wills and noble Baroness D'Souza, where there is a duty to investigate what is revealed and the noble Lord Wills who. I was encouraging to speak and I'm sure he will soon. 119 for a process of refreshing the protections. If these can be embodied in this bill, my Lords, we can start to turn the tide on the difficulties that whistleblowers face.

Finally, turning briefly to the office for the whistleblowers amendments 110, 111 112, which I also support, and which a strong case for which has just been made. I would only comment on two points. First, the sheer scale of the task that this office would have to take on, given the foregoing comments that I've made and secondly, linked to it, the commensurate need for adequate resourcing of that office. Now, my Lords, I repeat, I support all the amendments in that group.

I am not going to go through them one by one, but I do hope that the Minister, when responding, will give very serious consideration not only to the need, but for the practical solutions that they offer.
16:18
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name, in this in this group, but before I do so, can I extend my thanks, as others have already done to the noble Lord, my friend, the noble Lord, the Minister, for his openness and willing to engage with all parts of this House as this bill progresses. Through it all, I think very grateful to him. And can I associate myself with everything that's been said so far in by people moving members of the noble Lords House moving amendments, particularly with the magisterial encompassing of the Panorama panoramic vision that Baroness Kramer gave.

I want to speak particularly to amendments 40 and 54, because this bill, as we all recognise, I think, has the ability and the potential to transform our public sector and how it responds to major scandals and wrongdoing within it, yet simply imposing a duty of candour to speak up without making it meaningful within an organisation, and increasing the protections available to those who do, may mean that the impact of this bill will turn out to be not as significant as I think we all want it to be now.

As others have said, whistleblowing is a vital tool of public accountability. We know that from research that when whistleblowers are not listened to, harm occurs to the individuals directly affected and covering up wrongdoing and even criminal behaviour also inflicts significant costs on the wider public. Too often, for example, the public taxpayer picks up the bill by way of investigations, inquiries and confiscation schemes. The whistleblowing charity protect, for example, recently studied three public sector scandals where whistleblower warnings were not heeded and they found that the avoidable costs for the taxpayer totalled over £400 million.

Moreover, nearly 40% of callers from local and central government to protect whistleblowing advice line say that their employers simply ignore their concerns. Whistleblowers have two fears that they'll be harmed as a result of speaking up, and that it is futile to do so, and these amendments seek to address those problems. Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that whistleblowers who come forward can do so with confidence that their claims will be investigated and they will be safe from retaliation and victimisation.

And amendment 40 requires that the disciplinary consequences of failing to comply with this duty to investigate should be set out, ensuring that everyone in any organisation is aware that failure to comply has severe consequences is crucial in making the duty to investigate whistleblowing effective, and I now turn to amendment 119, which is very timely because at Second Reading and throughout the proceedings today, we've all heard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how important whistleblowing protection Is. The government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government. Itself has recognised the need to. Legislate for such improvements. I quote. From the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the. Then Minister in 2024. We are aware of the long overdue requirement, long overdue requirement, to look at whistleblowing law and again in 2025, legislation is now a quarter 2025, legislation is now a quarter of a century old, as Baroness Kramer as just described and quote needs looking at in the light of experience in the number of scandals that have been mentioned. We are considering where we go next on whistleblowing legislation. Well, my Lords, the government needs to think no more because today it launched a very welcome consultation on this matter.

Now, once that is concluded, there is no need to delay legislation further for more than a few months needed to digest the results of that consultation. It doesn't need longer. The problems are well known as Baroness Kramer has described. They've been known for a long time, and all the remedies are piled up on the laptops of Ministers and officials. And yet legislative time is scarce, fiercely competed for. And so, with an election looming in the not too distant future, any legislation resulting from this consultation could be years away.

And that's after so many years of prevarication. And in the meantime, all the problems and injustices of the current situation will continue. So this amendment seeks to head off such a failure by giving government the powers of secondary legislation to do what almost everyone in both houses, and all those who suffered grievously from division, whistleblower protection, and all those who will suffer in future that they recognise this is urgently desirable. So I hope my noble friend will recognise how helpful I'm being in giving him the opportunity to reassure this your Lordships' House by accepting this modest amendment that the government is not using this consultation to kick these critically important issues once again into the long grass.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to make a brief intervention. At Second Reading, I pointed out that the various pointed out that the various failures that we have suffered in recent years, I won't recite them yet again, have happened. yet again, have happened. Notwithstanding the fact that we have had codes of conduct in place. So the service code, ministerial So the service code, ministerial code, the much talked about Nolan Principles, they haven't prevented Principles, they haven't prevented these awful failings taking place.

And the point of that is to say that codes can become pious statements of good intent. I am absolutely clear that the government doesn't want this bill to fall into that category, but if it isn't to fall into that category, one of the things that we have to do is to ensure that reasonable, reasonable complaints or requests for investigation, whether they come from what we would call whistleblowers or wherever, that they are actually investigated. And many of the failings that we've seen have been as a result of that not being done.

I know it's
16:25
16:25
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we have in front of us >> My Lords, we have in front of us today a very large number of amendments, most of them from my noble friend Lady Cramer, who makes a very strong case for including whistleblowing in detail. And I'm very pleased to hear from the Minister that there's a consultation out on whistleblowing. And from these benches we want to say that we absolutely agree with Lord Wills comments. We want no delays in implementation at all.

And if there is any concern about delays, because without it, it is quite clear without whistleblowing as part of the bill, things will not change. And we've been hearing from other noble Lords around the House about their concerns about that. I want to just go back very briefly to something that I mentioned at the Second Reading of the bill. My noble friend, Lady Cramer, referred to Peter. Peter was the Public Interest Disclosure Act was went through your Lordships' House in 1998, and it amended the Employment Rights Bill of 1996, in which there had been substantial debate about the responsibilities of employees as well as employment rights.

But it clearly failed on anything to do with whistleblowing, which is why the entirety of the short Peter Bill was actually amending the previous employment rights bill. Why do I raise that? Because it still isn't working. Even the Employment Rights Act, this House debated last year, doesn't include effective whistleblowing terms. So whilst we're discussing it in the context of the duty of candour, actually it's a much wider problem in the country. And it's right that our focus is there.

But we must not forget this country fails at whistleblowing. And I was very grateful to my noble friend, Lady Cramer, for giving us the illustration of what's happened in America, since they did introduce whistleblowing. Structures and authorities to make things work. My Lords, Lady Featherstone's amendment 50, which I had signed, I completely agree with. I think the one of the important things that. When I was health spokesperson for the party in 2020 to 2023 was the number of very serious incidents inside the NHS, which by that time had had a duty of candour for clinical professionals for four years.

Now it's worked clearly in some parts of the NHS, but not in others. And I'm very grateful to the CQC for meeting with me to discuss examples of where it's worked and where it hasn't, and I'll come back later in this bill to to where they think it works. But I think it is also important to note that even the regulator talks about poor leadership and lack of transparency becoming the culture that does not allow whistleblowing. And I want to very briefly quote from a case reported by the British Medical Journal on the 26th of May 2023, where a senior consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist was dismissed after raising patient safety concerns, was then sacked for whistleblowing.

And apparently he was electrocuted by a piece of equipment at work. He reported it. Nothing happened. Next time he used it, he was electrocuted again. He reported it again, and things built up until suddenly he became the problem, not the issue. And the result of that was that there was a group of doctors and other members, doctors from elsewhere, over a thousand, supporting him, recognising he was a whistleblower. To this day, his health trust says he was not sacked for whistleblowing.

And I'll bet that's probably true. But everybody knows that his actions were behind that, and I've seen it with other consultants as well. It's a real problem for the NHS, which is one of the reasons I'm glad later in this bill we're actually amending the duty of candour for the NHS Protect. The whistleblower charity, as Lord Wills mentioned, is really important as well through their advice line, which tackles whistleblowing in every part of the country and returns, I think, to the issue I was raising about the Employers Rights Employment Rights Act.

So from these benches we absolutely welcome the consultation that has been published today. We urge the government not just to conclude the consultation speedily and the response to it, but to take very serious consideration of the amendments in this group today, particularly those from my noble friend, Lady Cramer. And I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
16:30
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. this group. I know many of her amendments on whistleblowing bear similarities to amendments proposed by her on other matters in the last session, in particular the noble Baroness proposal for an office of the. For the whistleblower with, I note 16 functions of that office is something that she has moved previously, and shall therefore be surprised to hear that we on these benches are not able to support her on that proposal, but I hope we might be able to find more common ground in our debates on later groups.

I do not propose to detain the House with a long response to the arguments, which have been made eloquently by Lady Cramer Lord Wills and Lady Featherstone. Of course, we agree that accountability is extremely important. If a serious concern is raised within a department, from whatever level of official or whatever part of the department, officials and Ministers ought to be taking that very seriously. A well run department should have mechanisms in place to assess its own performance and put a stop both to systemic failures and also to prevent future wrongdoing within their organisations.

And that appears to be self-evident. And I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, when responding, will be able to set out some of the processes that exist within government to ensure that bad practice is brought to the attention of senior officials and Ministers in the proper way. And as we have heard, that timely, effective action is taken. That is, as I say, self-evident. What is not self-evident to me, my Lords, is the assertion that an entirely new whistleblowing process or office, with a panoply of powers and a profusion of minor potentates, is in fact needed to facilitate effective reporting of bad practice.

And if this matter is to go further, I would like to hear a little more from those noble Lords proposing these amendments on the projected cost of some of these proposals, and also the impact a new whistleblowing process would have on the ability of departments to quickly resolve issues when they arise, rather than finding themselves locked into formal investigatory processes, which may delay quick and effective action. I would also suggest that the variety of approaches proposed by the amendments might indicate that there is a lack of clarity on the right approach.

Sometimes a proliferation of proposed remedies indicates the absence of a clear diagnosis in the first place. But with that, my Lords, I look forward to the response of the noble Lady, the Minister.
16:33
None Portrait Gov. Spokes Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-

And my Lords. This has. >> Been an important and somewhat constrained debate. I thought we would be discussing it for a little longer, but a very informative debate. I want to, first of all, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cramer, who I've worked very constructively with on these issues relating to previous pieces of legislation, and she knows of my personal commitment. She also, in previous pieces of legislation, gave me homework, and I duly did it and did an appropriate level of engagement.

It's why I am so pleased to be able to have volunteered or volunteered for this grouping from my noble friend the Minister. Before I move on to the substance, I just want to touch on one of the most important issues that has been raised. And that's the death of Simon Andrews, which was raised by the noble Baroness. I cannot comment on the details of what she expects me to do so, but I share I think the whole House is concerned about what happened and the issues that his case raises, and I am sure that the FCA will be undertaking the appropriate investigations.

My Lords, whistle blowers play an important role in exposing wrongdoing, protecting public funds and most importantly, protecting the general public. And it is essential that public officials can raise concerns without fear of adverse treatment. I have listened carefully to the debate, and especially the contributions of my noble friend, Lord wills, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who just on that point, the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. When she talks about these issues, she talks about it with a level of personal experience and.

And some members of your Lordships' House may not be aware that her sister did all raised significant issues that if they had been listened to, would have saved huge pain and distress for many, many others, which is indicative of why we have to now have this duty of candour and why the processes need to be in place. Moving to the substance of these groups of amendments. While the government's view is that existing legal protections already provide safeguards for officials who speak up about alleged wrongdoing under the duty of candour, I genuinely want to engage further with noble Lords on these issues.

As the passage of the Bill progresses to see what, where and how, given the consultation we can do. I also want to be clear that under the bill, the public authorities are required to make and publish a code of Ethical conduct which must contain information about the organisation's whistleblowing policies, even where a disclosure does not meet the statutory test for whistleblowing protection, employees may still be able to challenge a dismissal where the disclosure was made in accordance with a legal duty such as duty of candour and assistants, employers and in turn, the Employment Tribunal, which I enable was absolutely right to raise the cost.

But I would urge all, every employee to be a member of a trade union should they find themselves in such a position. Employment tribunals are able to take these factors into account when assessing the fairness of any dismissal. Public authorities will ensure that employees, via any code of ethical conduct, are able to find out about their rights. However, I do understand the concerns which have been raised, which is why I'm pleased that today the government has launched an open consultation on the operation of the whistleblowing framework, and I would encourage all members of your Lordships' House to make their own submissions.

I want to reassure your Lordships' House that there is no predetermined decision, and while I appreciate the concerns that the noble Baroness lady has raised about the last consultation that was not done by this government, and the noble Baroness will be more than aware that we might have slightly different views about what we would be seeking to explore. As part of the current consultation, we are seeking views on options to encourage or require employers to have appropriate arrangements for handling whistleblowing disclosures.

One option under consideration is a legal requirement for larger private sector and all public sector employers to have effective whistleblowing procedures in place. This could include a requirement to carry out appropriate follow up disclosures, such as making initial assessment of the disclosure, seeking further information where necessary, and considering whether there is evidence and wrongdoing that may have occurred. However, to be clear, we are not proposing to require employers to formally investigate every disclosure. Instead, employers would be expected to take reasonable and proportionate steps to assess whether a disclosure has merit and decide what action, if any, is appropriate.

The government is also seeking views on whether an independent whistleblowing body should be established. I appreciate concerns about the time required to move from consultation to reform. However, whistleblowing is an issue that affects all sectors of the economy, and concerns relating to protected disclosures are not unique to the public sector. It is therefore important that we take account of views of a wide range of stakeholders before deciding whether legislative change is needed and what it would look like. My personal engagement on this issue has made it clear that there is not one agreed way forward.

In fact, every stakeholder I met had a different, considered opinion on what an office could look like or what compensation could look like, and what protections could and should look like. So a consultation, in my opinion, is required in order to make sure that we can get to a point where it is workable for the majority. It would therefore be premature to legislate on these matters before the evidence has been gathered and considered, and the government has reached conclusions on the future of whistleblowing framework.

Moving to amendment 108, which seeks to require a review within 12 months of Royal Assent, whether the Act's disclosure provisions are protecting those who rely on them to report to Parliament, including on whether an independent body should be established. We agree that it is right to review whether the measures in the Bill are working as intended. We are exploring the best way to achieve that and what should be covered as part of that, and I look forward to those ongoing discussions with the noble Lady.

I also want to remind peers of the scope of the bill. Any changes in this bill would apply only to the public sector, creating disparate discrepancies in the whistleblowing framework with other sectors, which is far from ideal in this area. Any change should be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change for all. Grateful to her. We're coming on later in the bill to discuss the later in the bill to discuss the role of subcontractors who are caught by whistleblowing. Is the noble Lady the Minister, saying noble Lady the Minister, saying that they would not be caught by any whistleblowing arrangements? Subcontractors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Subcontractors. The noble Lord. The Minister has kindly volunteered to answer that. When we get to that section of When we get to that section of debate. And I'll be sitting here, so I'll make sure he does. However, I am happy to meet with all peers to meet with any member of your Lordships' House to discuss how we can use the Code of Ethical Conduct to make clearer existing protections, and ask that those interested feed into the government consultation. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
16:41
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I know that I should be brief, so let me simply say how much I appreciate all the speeches that have been made. I think we have to find some areas where we can make real progress in order to tackle those two issues of investigation and protection against retaliation and detriment, that I hope that the whistleblowing consultation that's taking place does not become an excuse not to do that. Within the context of this bill. And I do suspect that those of us who are engaged around this issue will, by report, have come to some common ground.

I hope that the government will be part of finding that common ground, because that's going to be the most effective way to move forward. I certainly have some detailed answers to some of the issues that were raised, because there are some things that actually, I think are in error. For example, the cost of of an office of the whistleblower that I'm just got a note from the United States to say that this year alone, whistleblowing cases led to a submission, a sending to Treasury, $5.3 billion.

That's because of the additional cases that were prosecuted. So that's I think there are a whole lot of issues like that that we could discuss. But I do think it is important that we make progress. I thank the government for being willing to listen, and I hope that we can make some real progress and not, as I say, simply depend on having an outcome from a consultation. I do find the consultation as it reads very disappointing because it is a very narrow consultation. But if the Minister is correct and that we can open up that consultation to a much broader discussion, that would be exceedingly helpful.

And can I encourage everyone to provide a much broader response? Because if they simply answer the questions, we will see nothing than a small movement of commas and full stops.
16:43
16:43
None Portrait Amendment:3 Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-

>> My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment three standing in my name. And of course, also in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, and also speak to our amendments. Four, 17 and 26 in this amendments. Four, 17 and 26 in this group. These are all probing amendments to query the definitions amendments to query the definitions of relevance and recklessness, and to clarify how the duty of candour will apply to public authorities and officials in practice.

And we will return to some of our concerns on the practical application of the duty of candour when we debate amendment 34, which is now in a later group, starting with amendments three and 17, which I'll take together because they raise the same point. They would remove the words may be before the word relevant from clause two three A, and also the new section ten A inserted into the inquiries into fatal Accidents and sudden Deaths, etc.

Scotland Act 2016 proposed in schedule one, and the arguments for both amendments are exactly the same. The short point is this as drafted clause two three A requires a public authority or official to notify the person leading an inquiry or investigation where their acts are or may be relevant. So when it comes to acts, the acts either have to be relevant or may be relevant. When it comes to information. However, in two three B, they only have to notify the inquiry or investigation of information that is relevant, not maybe relevant is relevant under two three b now that's obviously a distinction which has been considered, and the distinction would indicate that the government accepts that the authority or official is capable of making a judgement on what information is relevant, but in the case of acts, they require that same authority or official to make a notification where their acts are, or maybe relevant.

And this probing amendment simply seeks to clarify the purpose and impact of that obviously deliberate distinction. What are the government's reasons for including the broader test of relevance in the case of acts? But the narrower test of relevance in the case of information, is it to prevent an inquiry or investigation from being overloaded with irrelevant notifications in respect of information? If that is the case, what assessment has the government made of the risk that an inquiry would be overloaded with irrelevant notifications in respect of acts where the broader wording is used equally? Is it not the case that an official trying to undertake their duties under clause two three would be incentivised to notify an inquiry when their acts are almost certainly not, but may be relevant to that inquiry? I mean, the words may be relevant are a very low level of a very low threshold of connection.

It's lower than likely, probably. And other words we could all think about, does the government really want authorities and officials whose acts are almost certainly not relevant, nonetheless, to notify them? So what is the working definition of maybe relevant that public authorities and officials will be given to enable them to navigate their statutory duty under clause two three? A it would be helpful for noble Lords to see a draft of the guidance before we proceed to Report stage, and perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister would be able to assure the House that that guidance will be given to us before Report stage is reached, I should say assure the Committee before Report stage is reached.

And turning to the broader question, how would the government expect an authority or official to navigate this duty without a clear definition of relevant and there is a risk either of people making notifications unnecessarily or, on the other side, risk committing an offence by not reporting at all. The explanatory notes provide the helpful clarification that this clause does not oblige authorities or individuals to actively monitor all investigations or inquiries, and search for information on a speculative basis to assess its relevance.

But what defence would be available to a public authority or official who fails to notify an inquiry of relevant acts or information if they were not aware of it? I think the Bill actually contains an answer to that question, but for the benefit of those who will have to navigate this new duty and shouldn't be required to pass the bill in order to work out what their duties are, perhaps the Minister would be able to answer that question for us today, because in order for this bill to have the impact we all would want it to have, if it's going to become law, we don't want to disincentivize good and honest people from choosing to devote themselves to public service, and therefore, we need to make sure there is no ambiguity.

And I look to the noble Lord, the Minister, to remove that ambiguity today. Turning to amendment four, the trigger for the duty of candour. This is another probing amendment. And the short point here is, at what point does the duty of candour kick in? At what point is that duty triggered as a matter of law? The reason why this is relevant is that clause eight is clear that the duty of candour and assistance applies, both in respect of an inquiry that starts after this Bill is passed and has come into force.

All these ongoing at that time. And this amendment, therefore probes what the government means by started. And the suggestion in the amendment is that the duty should be triggered by the formal establishment of an inquiry, and by making that suggestion, I really want to give the noble Lord the Minister, the opportunity to confirm whether that is his intention in this bill or whether the government has an alternative point of time in mind, and if so, what that is.

And of course, I'll listen carefully to the noble Lord. The minister's response. Finally, the definition of recklessness in amendment 26, clause five one a two applies the test of recklessness to the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour, so you with the duty of candour, so you can be guilty of that offence if you. Either intend. So I think I said 5182 it's five one b two. I'm sorry if you either intend that your failure will impede the inquiry or in two if you're reckless as to whether it will do so.

What my amendment probes. And we don't challenge the addition of recklessness in principle. What the amendment probes is whether the government feels it is more important to rely on the common law definition of recklessness, or whether we should make the bill clearer by including a statutory definition of recklessness on the face of the bill. It's tempting, but now is probably not the time to embark on a on a soliloquy as to the law of recklessness, but in very short form.

And the the. I can see some lawyers are disappointed already. You were. You were hoping for the words Cunningham and Caldwell to be mentioned, and Caldwell is in my notes, but I just threw in Cunningham for your edification and delight. What I've sought to do is to place a definition of recklessness as set out in Crown and G, which is a 2003 case from this House in its former appellate capacity. On the face of the bill, the objective test of whether a reasonable, reasonable person ought to be aware of a risk with.

Established again by this House in its appellant capacity. In the earlier case of Caldwell in 1982, that was ultimately overturned to the consternation of some and the delight of many law students by this House in Crown an G. In 2003, which introduced a more subjective test. And that's essentially, you know, two, two limbs. The prosecution has got to establish that the defendant actually foresaw the relevant risk, not merely that a reasonable person would have foreseen it. And then the second bit, the assessment of whether taking that risk was unreasonable, is then made by reference to all the circumstances known to the defendant.

And that's the twin test which we would, the amendment suggests, should be added here. So is the government agree that that is the appropriate test of recklessness, or does the government propose to adopt the common law position, which of course may change from time to time, and would be interested in the reasons for the government's decision? My Lords, for those reasons, I beg to move those amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause two, page two. Line 24 leave out. Or
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:57
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Wilson and others for their contributions, and I also thank Lord Wolfson and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen for the discussions we've had about these points before. Now I do. I think I I'm sure what what the noble Lords are driving at in in this collection of issues, and I'll try and deal with them one by one in order in order to set out the government's position clearly. And the legal advice we've had, for example, on the question of recklessness, I'll come to that in a moment, if I may.

I. But before I respond to each amendment in turn, I do want to pick up the point that the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Wolfson made about public servants and Disincentivising. I don't want anything I say or the government says about this bill to suggest in any way that most public servants are dishonest, or seek to cover things up, or seek to lie in inquiries. Public servants are honourable people in the very large measure, and I applaud and and pay tribute to their work.

I was challenged at a at a crossbench meeting to say that, and I promised I would, and I have let me turn specifically to the amendments in in turn, which I think I've got a good answer to amendment three, which would remove from clause two three the requirement for an authority or or official to notify an inquiry or investigation if their acts, quote, may be unquote relevant. The bill uses relevant or may be relevant at this point, rather than just relevant, because at that stage of the inquiry or investigation, the authority or official may not have complete certainty about what is relevant or not.

So that is a proactive obligation. The authority or individual will not have received a direction or request explaining what the inquiry or investigation requires of them. So necessarily at that point, they may have to act on an assumption of what quote may be relevant in relation to the to the obligation in three which which the noble and learned Lord Wilson pointed out was different, but we only use relevant and not may be relevant. The reason for this is that it comes at a different stage in the process.

What. When it is possible to be more clear and specific about precisely what it is, the information request is. So that's the reason for the difference. But. But I'm very happy to discuss it further. If if the noble and learned Lord Booth-Smith wants to do that. Amendment four seeks to provide clarity on when the duties apply, and we agree with the noble and Leonard Lord's intention of providing clarity. And that's what's behind all these amendments. However, different types of inquiry and investigation can begin in different ways, and it's the government's view using the term established as suggested, does not provide any more clarity than the existing wording of the bill.

Let me turn now to amendment 17. Would which the noble and learned Lord Rose would make the position for fatal accident inquiries consistent with other types of investigation in the Bill. It achieves this by requiring the Procurator Fiscal to give a compliance direction to a public authority or official. If they are satisfied that the person's act are relevant and the government's view that the noble and. Leonard Lord has therefore raised a valid point which we are considering in our. In. My officials will come back at reports day, or I'll come back at Report stage with their.

With their advice. Finally, I turned to amendment 26, which seeks to define reckless for the offence of breaching the duty. I'm smiling because I was looking forward to the tutorial. I suspect I'll have to have it in private of breaching the duty of candour and assistance. The definition of reckless in the context of criminal offences is defined by case law, which is long established. I would slightly demur from the characterisation of judicial activism set out by the noble Lady Baroness Coffey, and I suspect I've got some allies.

It is, therefore, our legal advice is it's not necessary to define reckless here, and to do so would be very different from the approach usually taken in legislation, and may give rise to some confusion. However, I'm very happy I'm going. I'm getting rather intrigued now, so I'll be very happy to discuss it further. So for the reasons I've mentioned, we consider the noble and learned laws. Amendment three, four and 26 to be not necessary and. And I hope he has that.

I hope he has noted the commitment I have made to consider the proposal of amendment 26. I'm happy to discuss the other points, but at this stage I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendments.
17:02
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'll be very brief. I >> My Lords, I'll be very brief. I should thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his considered, certainly not reckless response to certainly not reckless response to these various amendments also for promoting me, I think this morning when I appeared in court, I was learned. But I think when I come here in the afternoon, I'm then unlearned by by convention, as opposed to my noble and learned friend, Lord keen, who's learned in both both the High Court and in the High Court of Parliament.

But I. I'm very grateful for the noble Lord. The minister's response. Of course, we'll will consider this further, and we'll obviously engage with him further. And it gives me an opportunity as well to thank him for the engagement he's given me and others so far. It does seem to me that clause two, three, A and B, in fact do both apply at the same time and therefore I'm not sure why there is the distinction between our. Or maybe. And then is.

And I would respectfully agree with the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee with her reasoning, if not her conclusion, that really they ought to be the same. They either all they are, they both should be, is, or are, or both should be. Maybe. But it's the dissonance between the two that's odd. On the points, on recklessness and the tutorial which never came. Noble Lords who come back for report may find the tutorial at that stage, but it may be that because of further discussions with the Minister, the noble Lord, the Minister, they do not.

In the meantime, I seek the committee's leave to withdraw these amendments.
17:04
17:04
17:05
None Portrait Amendment:5 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-

of the speed of response. But, my Lords, it's worse than just having Lords, it's worse than just having to think about what we do with digital messages. It took the Hillsborough families 20 years and the Hillsborough independent panels work for them to get full disclosure. And one of the group said an awful load had been redacted and the police were told not to put anything into their notebooks. It took us 20 odd years to get disclosure. It doesn't matter what's in it, warts and all.

Give us the disclosure. Otherwise you just don't know what you're up against. There are reams of evidence I want to look at, but it's up to the chair of the independent panel. I think it should be mandatory for us to be able to see all the evidence that we choose, end quote. Now, my Lords, it's clear that data must be kept and recorded. And in this day and age, that goes beyond notebooks and must include digital evidence to. More importantly, this will strengthen transparency and ensure that all inquiries and investigations can do their job and thereby also strengthen accountability.

Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Lord Willis, which I've signed, is also probing amendment to elucidate. If the intention is that information record keeping be completed as standards by public authorities in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958. And I've signed it because I think it's helpful for the Minister to be specific, and if so, refer back to my probing amendments on whether digital records in all their forms, current past, a few past, current and future would also be included in this amendment.

Ten, also laid by Lord Willis, ensures that unused material is protected in an annexe, which the chair of the inquiry can access as required if it is relevant. This too is helpful and might have assisted some of the Hillsborough family families. In the example that I gave earlier, all the amendments in this group seek to protect information. As information keeping becomes more and more complex. We know. We know that in some of the inquiries from years ago, retention of traditional data was inconsistent and worse.

The rules about retaining data are unclear enough for people to behave badly over it. My Lords, none of this is new. In the decades since investigation inquiries started into the infected blood scandal in the Lord Archer of Sandwell Inquiry 2007 to 2009, a whole chapter of his report was dedicated to the missing evidence and documents. Just one example suffices. The ministerial papers of Lord Owen had been destroyed. Probably not with his knowledge, the report said. We have been unable to ascertain who carried out the destruction of the papers and who gave the instructions, but the conclusion appears inescapable that some official made a decision which he or she had no authority to make, or that someone was guilty of a serious error of judgement.

Then Sir Brian Langstaff infected blood inquiry, which reported in 2024, found that in 2019. So after the the Lord Archer report had been published, it emerged that around 450 files had been taken from the archives by staff from the Department of Health and Social Care and not returned, sparking concerns among campaigners that the department was attempting a cover up. Then there's the Nuclear Veterans Investigations, which have been hampered by the disappearance of much of the medical data of the servicemen who were present at the UK atomic tests.

The Mod consistently denied it had the data, but in August of this year, the mirror revealed that the files had been held at a secret Mod laboratory. The nuclear tests happened in the 1950s, and such secrecy hampered conclusions on the damages to servicemen, many of whom are dying. The fact that this practice has been repeated ever since then by public officials with the civil servants or the NHS or other bodies, makes it clear that we have to be specific about data retention, and this bill is the place to do that.

I look forward to the minister's response, but this bill provides the perfect opportunity to ensure that in future, as part of part of the duty of candour, there is a responsibility to keep data appropriately and honestly in order to facilitate any future investigation or inquiry, I beg to
17:09
17:10
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
that are in my name. Amendment ten is. Baroness Brinton has already said its aims to encourage transparency and efficiency in the proceedings covered by this bill. In doing so, it seeks to increase trust in those proceedings. Among those most directly affected. This bill is designed to tackle failure by the state. If it would hardly be surprising if those most directly affected by such failures were suspicious of how far the state was going to meet their concerns. Now, in the days following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, over 150,000 people signed a petition demanding the investigation must be, and I quote, fully transparent and allow the meaningful participation of the affected residents, their families and the surrounding community, end quote.

Now that, on its own, revealed the depth of public mistrust of the official processes that deal with the aftermath of such public disasters. Now, this bill is before your Lordships House, because over and over again, an original failure by the state has been compounded by failures to secure outcomes that those directly affected felt met their concerns. Now, in these circumstances, if this bill is to deliver on its admirable intentions, it must, among other things, do everything possible to secure the confidence of those most directly affected.

And, among other things, it must. They must know exactly what evidence exists and be able to assess for themselves what is relevant and what is not. Knowing there was an obligation to produce an annexe of materials related to their complaint would provide some reassurance that the records they may rely on had been identified and recorded. Now, in the case of the Hillsborough disaster, this process was in practice completed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and it proved essential for the effective preparation for the subsequent inquest.

It gave, as we've heard, the bereaved a chance to see in some instances for the first time key information about their loved ones. But it also saved time and money as the action taken in the wake of the Hillsborough independent panel's report progressed. So if a straightforward administrative task such as that set out in this amendment is introduced early in the process, it will help prevent delay and the subsequent anguish of those most directly affected. That is why it supported by Hillsborough families.

And I do hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept it. I turn now to amendment 29. It's straightforward. It seeks, as we've heard, to put on the face of the bill, something which it appears that the government had already considered. It seems only logical that if there are conditions within this legislation for the provision of records to an inquiry, there should also be an obligation for these to be created or preserved, as the case may be.

Now, it's a probing amendment, because this may be that the intention that this should be done as standard in accordance with the Public Record Act of 1958, however, in which case to create greater confidence in the Bill among all those who have suffered from state failures in the past, that should be made explicit on the face of the legislation. For the avoidance of any doubts, and I hope my noble friend the Minister can reassure the House on this point.
17:13
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Very briefly, I'd like to >> Very briefly, I'd like to intervene to support the amendments which have just been moved so ably by the noble Lord Lord Wills and spoken to and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I should say at the outset that I'm not going to make a long speech. But nuclear test victims have been mentioned back in the 1980s, literally in the middle of the night, in 1984, in 1985, in the House Commons, I raised the case of the 20,000 British who had been deliberately put in harm's way, and again and again, information that should have been disclosed was withheld.

So I agree entirely that where records are available, they must be made available to people who may have feel that they have been badly treated by the state. I'd like to refer to the case of Graham Gaskin as well, who was in social care in Liverpool. Again, I had an adjournment debate in another place on and raised his case on a number of occasions. He ended up having to steal his own records from Liverpool Social Services and go all the way to the European courts to finally get the law changed so that people who have been in the care of social services are subsequently able to have their records provided for them.

It must never be necessary for people to go to those lengths. But finally, my Lords, I'd like to refer to Hillsborough. I was appalled during the Hillsborough inquiry to learn many things which had been concealed. One of the most shocking was about those police officers who had been told to change the accounts in their own notebooks about the things that they had seen. And I know that the noble Lord Lemos shares my own indignation about what happened to the families at that time.

It should be mandatory to see evidence of that kind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said earlier on, I. I found it extraordinary to have to go to an inquiry to find out about correspondence that had passed between the police, independent Police, Investigative Commissioner and the police force in South Yorkshire that members of Parliament could be referred to in effectively derogatory ways for interfering in trying to establish the cause of what had occurred. That should never happen, but to conceal that, and for that not to be made available until these matters finally come out in a public inquiry, should not be the order of the day.

So I hope, even if these amendments are for technical reasons, things that the Minister feels he can't incorporate here at Committee stage, that he'll stay engaged with the noble Lord Lord Wills, with the noble Baroness Brinton and others who care about these questions, so that we can get this firmly put right on the face of the bill.
17:16
17:17
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Well, my Lord, the question addressed by these amendments is, is a really important one, and the noble Lord Lord Alton has said one that I've been very bothered about, which is the importance of record keeping and the treatment of information, which is at the heart of the duty of candour and indeed many other provisions. So let me try and address, as it were, the underlying concerns as well, as well as what the provisions of the Bill are.

And and try and reassure noble Lords that some of their concerns are are in effect within the Bill. But anyway, let me let me let me go one at a time. Let me, if I may, first turn to amendment 29, tabled by my noble friend Lord Wills, which would require the head of an authority to ensure the proper recording and keeping of information is the one that Noble and Leonard Lord Eames Baroness Lea relating to matters that may be the subject of an inquiry or investigation, including a process to ensure officials provide information not already held by the authority.

There is already statutory guidance setting out what and how information should be retained. Contained in the section 46 Code of Practice on Information and Records Management, published in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, paragraph 1.2.4 states that authorities should manage their information so as to create and maintain a record of their activities, which in turn provides evidence of their activity. Authorities should also keep information for as long as it has value. For example, if there is a public inquiry, a police investigation or legal action, other legislation which is also relevant in considering these matters is such as the Data Protection Act 2000 and the public records legislation, which my noble friend has referred to.

Some authorities will also have their own codes of practice that apply to the type of information that they hold in line with its own legislative framework, regulatory and other requirements such as health authorities and the police and organisations are very disparate in this sense. Turning to the noble Lords other amendment. Amendment ten. This would enable the chair of a statutory inquiry to require a person to list information not provided to the inquiry, with reasons why the information was not provided in a document which is available to the chair.

The Bill already provides for this in that under clause two four E, an authority or official can be required to provide further information or clarification as required by the inquiry or investigation. So far as is reasonably practicable, an inquiry or investigation could therefore direct an authority or official to provide clarification as to why they have and have not supplied particular information. I think responds to some of the concerns of the noble. My noble friend Lord Wills. I would also like to thank Baroness noble Lady Baroness Brinton for her amendments 38 and five, which seek to ensure that relevant records be disclosed to an inquiry or investigation, including, crucially, digital messages, and that the Code of Ethical Conduct requirement includes the expectation for public officials and authorities to retain and disclose digital records where necessary.

We are confident that the bill already ensures that documents are accessible and protects against the destruction of documents. As mentioned previously in my response to the noble Lord Lord Wills amendment, clause two four A requires authorities and officials to provide information likely to be relevant to an inquiry or an investigation if requested. This reply applies irrespective of the format. All communication channels in which relevant information is held and that may therefore include digital communications. The specific concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

The government also recognises that the increasing use of digital communications raises raises wider questions about how information should be managed and retained. These these issues obviously extend beyond the specific duties created by this Bill and in relation to government are currently being considered by the independent review of Non-Corporate Communication channels led by Sir Anthony Finkelstein. And we don't think. The government does not excuse me. The government does not think it would be advisable to prescribe detailed requirements for the retention of particular forms of digital communication while that review is underway.

But the government will consider the review's findings, including implications for relevant law, policy guidance and code. When the review reports, the individual in charge of an authority must also take reasonable steps to secure the authority's compliance with the duty, including insurance. Ensuring documents are accepted are accessible. In addition, and we shall return to this matter in other debates on other groups at committee, in appropriate circumstances where the other elements of the offence are met. A failure to enclose disclose digital messages.

A failure to disclose digital messages could also be caught by the new seriously improper acts limb of the misconduct in public affairs in public office offence. Under this offence, a public office holder commits an offence if they use their position with the intent of obtaining a benefit or causing another to suffer a detriment, and, when doing so, ought to know that their action is seriously improper. A benefit could include seeking to protect themselves or their organisation from reputational harm in some circumstances.

Other offences, such as contempt of court or perverting the course of justice, could also apply. Where someone is required to provide information to court or during an investigation. My Lords, I hope I've reassured your Lordships that the underlying issue that the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, are ones that the government takes very seriously, and I hope the reassurance that I have given in relation to this Bill and to other provisions will. Will meet the approval of the noble Lord and the noble Lady, and I ask them, therefore, to withdraw their amendment.
17:24
17:26
17:26
None Portrait Amendment:6A Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-

Ely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'll begin by formally moving amendment six a, which again moving amendment six a, which again is in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, and myself. I'll also speak to amendment 19, which is in this amendment 19, which is in this group, and is on the main amendment pages. There are a number of pages. There are a number of amendments in this group, and six happens to be the first, which I think is why I'm standing at first.

In the interest of time, I hope the Committee will understand, if, at least in these remarks, I'll just focus on the amendments in my name. And the official opposition's amendment. I should say that we do not oppose the government's amendments in this group. Amendment six A is a switch off mechanism, and it seeks to limit the size of an enquiry where the requirement for notification and assistance applies, and sets that limit at an enquiry where there are more than 100 individuals involved.

And this is explicitly a probing amendment to explore the potential issues that might arise from large volumes of irrelevant or barely relevant and probably unnecessary notifications and information being provided to investigations and inquiries, which have a very broad scope. So we would be interested in hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, as to what assessment the government has made of the impact of the broad duty of candour and assistance would have on the size of investigations and inquiries, and what effect, in turn, would that have on the speed at which these inquiries come to a conclusion? I think there are many of us who raise eyebrows, sometimes at the speed or lack of it, at which some inquiries come or don't come to conclusions.

The impact assessment provided by the government identifies the possible benefit of more inquiries taking place on a non-statutory basis, and the savings you will get from inquiring inquiries. Getting it right first time. But it's silent on the risk that more public authorities and officials would come forward, especially where statutory inquiries have very broad terms of reference. So we would be interested in whether the government has made an assessment of that risk. Could we have, if so, an updated risk assessment before the scrutiny of the bill in your Lordships' House is completed.

The other amendment in our name is amendment 19. This would require clear guidance on how the duty of candour, which would, of course become a statutory obligation, interacts with duties and other existing legislation. This is not a suggestion for the duty of candour to overrule existing legislation. The Bill is clear on that point. In clause seven A, but as I mentioned at Second Reading, there is some complexity here. For example, public bodies have existing duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which includes both requirements to disclose information and also exemptions from disclosure.

Data protection law, for example, restricts disclosure of personal information. Legal professional privilege can also prevent the disclosure of information. And in that landscape of potentially conflicting and overlapping legal responsibilities, we do suggest that clause seven A might not be enough. And the purpose of this amendment is to invite Ministers to look at it again in detail, and in particular, published guidance for those public bodies that will be subject to the duty of candour. Amendment 19 would require this within a month of the bill becoming law.

But of course, if the guidance could be presented before that point, that would be all the better. Of course, this speaks again to the need for support from departments or some other body to assist public authorities and officials in navigating what might be quite complex duties under the bill, because without that support, either people will not meet their statutory duties, which means the information will not be provided, or of course, they might be committing a criminal offence. And this is somewhat a technical piece of legislation.

Many of the people to whom this duty applies will not have any legal experience themselves. There's no reason why they should. And therefore clear guidance is needed all the more so for those reasons, my Lord, I beg to move the amendments standing in my name in this group, and I look forward to hearing debate on other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments in this group as well. Amendment proposed clause two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause two, page two. Line 39. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have amendments 13 and 63 in this group, and I've also signed amendment 68 in the name of my noble friend Lord marks, who cannot
17:32
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noble friend Lord marks, who cannot be in his place today. Amendment 13 looks for a statutory duty of candour and assistant that extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers of the Crown and by local authorities. And some of the thinking about this is that the borderline between bigger judge led inquiries and some of these inquiries can be quite difficult to to ascertain, or even those that have started at a lower level, as in without a judge.

I have to be very careful of my words here. I don't mean lower in terms of competence, but something that's done at a local level, for example, first of all, but has led to an unsatisfactory result, then ends up as a formal inquiry judge led inquiry decades later, having cost millions to the country, but more importantly has left the victims feeling under UN as if they have not been listened to and certainly usually not able to access compensation at that time.

So we think it's important that, broadly, the same rules of duty of candour ought to be an assistance ought to be included for those as well. My amendment 63 looks for a duty for NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England to adopt codes of conduct for mandatory reporting of concerns in relation to systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoings in relation to patient safety in a trust. And my Lords, I spoke earlier on about some of the problems that the NHS has faced since it introduced a duty of candour in clinical environments in 2016, and the CQC are very clear that most of the trusts, where there are major failings, including tragedies that have led to inquiries, have been where there is a really poor culture and CQC can give many examples of where there are high performing trusts elsewhere, where it appears that there is also substantial trust in what's going on, and that means that there's a favourable environment for whistleblowers and indeed for reporting, even if it's not mandatory.

But I think what's really shocked the nation over recent years has been the number of NHS scandals that just keep emerging, which points to something very, very serious going on at the moment. I've already spoken today about infected blood. Well, that my Lord started in the 1970s and it's still not concluded. There are some women who still do not know if their blood was infected because of a transfusion in the 80s or 90s, because GPS have only just been asked to check medical records to see if they have female patients who may have had a transfusion.

Unfortunately, my Lords, I know from my own experience that my delightful hospital has destroyed all records from pre 2012. So if that's the case, then GPS won't even be able to find much of that information out. That's not good practice. But my Lords, the real scandal, I think for all of us has been the maternity hospital reports. Government now says that there are 14 trusts being investigated by Baroness Amos investigation, which include Shrewsbury, Leeds, Sussex, Somerset, Bradford, East Kent.

I could go on. There isn't a common theme to any one of these trusts, so something systemic is going wrong in our maternity system in the country at the moment, and I'm very grateful to the number of people who have carried out investigations and exposed this. But all the points that we've raised earlier in the debate this afternoon about whistleblowing is true in maternity as well. There, my Lords, there is the sodium valproate scandal, which is still waiting for its first investigation.

This is women with epilepsy who are prescribed a drug in pregnancy, even though the medical profession knew that it could risk damage to the foetus, 20,000 children have got either developmental or physical disabilities as a result of that, and there has been no investigation either into the pharma companies or into the doctors. The vaginal mesh scandal, where the wrong sort of mesh was used on women, which has left them crippled for years, is exactly the same. And the women victims of fat inside the NHS are distraught.

Already spoken about the nuclear war veterans who have had a lot of their cases held up partly through the Mod, but also partly through the poor record keeping in the NHS. And that, my Lords, is why my amendment says there should be mandatory reporting of these issues, because otherwise, my Lords, we will not catch these cases and there will be more scandals in the future and there should not be. So finally, my my noble friend Lord Marks amendment probes the definition of a public authority for chapters one and three of part two and chapter two of part two.

And I do hope that the. As he isn't here today, perhaps the noble Lord could write to him just to let him know whether or not his concerns about things not being clear enough are justified. With that, my Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move my amendment. My Lords, I have amendments 12 and 14 in this group on the and 14 in this group on the slightly technical. But I think vital issue of the service of compliance. Directions and compliance. Directions and enquiries clause three four and schedule one currently provide for schedule one currently provide for compliance directions to make the clause two for duty of candour and clause two for duty of candour and assistance work in practice. Although the current draft has provisions for the service of these directions in non-statutory inquiries, it has none.

For inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, the general provisions for
17:38
17:39
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise. >> To speak to amendments 18. >> And 20. >> Standing in my name, and in doing so, I do apologise for my absence from unavoidable absence from the Second Reading debate. At the heart of this certainly merited Bill lies a simple but vital principle. Public authorities and public officials must tell the whole truth and as soon as possible. The duty of candour is intended to ensure that those given public responsibilities assist the search for truth rather than impede it.

However, as presently drafted in this bill, there appears to be a significant gap, or at least an opaque ambiguity. A person who possesses critical information may seek to avoid disclosure by relying on what is called the privilege against self-incrimination. That privilege protects individuals from being compelled to provide evidence that could subsequently be used to provide, to secure their own conviction. It's a component of fairness in the criminal justice system, and I make no criticism of that privilege in general terms.

However, my Lords, the privilege was never intended to become a shield behind which public misconduct, institutional failure, or the concealment of documents and the truth can be allowed to lurk. These straightforward amendments strike a careful and proportional balance, I would suggest, between the competing principles I've just described, the amendments provide first, that compliance with the duty of candour must occur. Notwithstanding that the information disclosed may tend to expose the discloser to criminal liability on the face of it.

In other words, a person cannot simply refuse to answer because the answer may, on its face, be personally incriminating. It's all too easy to make an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, and it's very difficult, in short order, at least, to show that it is incorrect and unreasonable. Secondly, and critically, the amendments provide protection for the individual by rendering the compelled disclosure inadmissible against that person in criminal proceedings that might otherwise ensue. The information must be disclosed, but it cannot itself be used as the evidential basis for a prosecution.

That means we achieve the disclosure, but we sustain the privilege against self-incrimination. My Lords, these provisions are neither novel nor radical. Parliament has repeatedly accepted comparable proposals where the public interest in obtaining full and frank disclosure is considered sufficiently important as surely it must be under this Bill, for example, under section two of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the director of the Serious Fraud Office may compel a person to answer questions or provide information that is relevant to a fraud investigation.

Thus, a witness cannot refuse to answer on the ground that the answer may be self-incriminating. However, under those provisions, the answers obtained under compulsion are generally inadmissible against that person in criminal proceedings, except in limited circumstances such as prosecution for false or misleading statements, which are separate offences. Of course, other examples are to be found in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and in Competition and Regulatory Investigations. If the Minister requires chapter and verse, I won't bore the whole House by providing examples, but I will give them to him with pleasure and in complete detail.

So, my Lords, the model proposed in these amendments is neither novel, nor should it be controversial. In each of the areas I've referred to, Parliament has concluded that the public interest requires individuals to answer questions, disclose information and tell the truth while protecting them by preventing the direct use of those compelled answers in criminal proceedings. These amendments, therefore, simply apply that familiar and well-established balance to the statutory duty of candour. My Lords, I would suggest that this issue is particularly important in the context of this bill.

Many of the cases that have inspired calls for a statutory duty of candour have involved years, sometimes decades, of delay, before the truth emerges. One recurrent obstacle has been the reluctance of individuals, well advised by their lawyers to disclose what they knew because of concern about personal consequences, especially prosecution. The public interest in uncovering the truth about death, serious injuries, miscarriages of justice, institutional failures and abuses of power demands a stronger mechanism. And indeed, in one case in which I myself appeared as counsel, part of the so-called Cardiff three case, a true debacle in the criminal law, the privilege against self-incrimination formed part of the background by which police officers who had committed egregious wrongs against a defendant, witnesses and the victim's family were able to hide behind the privilege against self-incrimination.

My Lords, families seeking answers should not face a situation in which the very individuals best placed to explain what went wrong can simply choose to remain silent. Equally, those individuals should not be deprived of the fundamental protection against their compelled words being used to convict them. So these amendments, my Lords, I would suggest, promote truth without sacrificing justice. If this Bill is to achieve its purpose, the duty of candour must be a genuine duty, and not one that can be avoided whenever disclosure becomes uncomfortable or inconvenient.

At the same time, Parliament should not require self-incrimination without providing appropriate safeguards. These amendments achieve that balance, and their principle, their measured. They're consistent with established statutory precedents, and they're essential to the effective operation of the duty of candour. I therefore commend them to the House. I just have one thing to add, my Lords. I also support amendment 27, which will be spoken to by my noble kinswoman Baroness Levitt. However, my Lords, I know better than to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

steal her thunder. To speak to the amendment in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak to the amendment in my name. In this group. Amendment 23, and it seeks to remedy a long and it seeks to remedy a long standing gap in the state's undertakings to provide transparency in what it does, and I transparency in what it does, and I should declare an interest here as the unpaid chair of the campaign for Freedom of Information. Successive governments, including the one in which I was the Minister responsible, among other things,
17:47
17:48
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 27, standing in my name. At first sight, this amendment appears to concern sentencing, but actually it concerns whether this bill will deliver the cultural change that it seeks to achieve. The bill is founded upon a simple proposition that when things go wrong, public authorities and public officials should tell the truth. They should disclose relevant information, cooperate with investigations and inquiries, and assist those who are seeking to establish what happened.

But for too many victims and bereaved families, the injustice has not just been the original event itself, but the subsequent struggle to establish the truth. The duty of candour is intended to address that problem. It seeks to encourage openness rather than defensiveness, disclosure rather than concealment and accountability rather than institutional self-protection. But if the bill is to achieve that worthy objective, we must ensure that we do not simultaneously inadvertently undermine it. My Lords, Clause five provides that a deliberate breach of the duty of candour carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment.

Yet clauses 13 and 14 create offences criminalising seriously improper acts or breaches of duty, which carry maximum penalties of ten and 14 years respectively. So a public official who has behaved, or fears that they may have behaved in a way that which might bring them under suspicion of the more serious offences, faces a choice risk two years for breach of the duty or risk the much longer sentences which might be imposed for clauses 13 and 14. My Lords, what message does that send? Does it encourage disclosure or does it risk creating an incentive for concealment? A person who believes that that honesty may expose serious wrongdoing could conclude that remaining silent is the less risky course? Whether or not that calculation ultimately proves to be correct, legislation should not create circumstances in which that looks like a rational and therefore a tempting choice.

The purpose of this bill surely should be to make candour a safer option. But as drafted, there is a risk that the opposite conclusion may be drawn. And this matters, my Lords, because this Bill is ultimately about changing the culture. Public officials should understand from the outset that honesty, openness and cooperation are expected and that attempts to frustrate accountability unacceptable. So if this bill succeeds in changing the culture, there should not be more prosecutions. There should be fewer. My Lords, the criminal law has long recognised that conduct which obstructs the search for truth can itself be extremely serious.

The offence of perverting the course of justice is an obvious example. Justice depends upon evidence, disclosure and honesty, and deliberate attempts to conceal information will frustrate the discovery of the truth, undermine that process and can cause profound harm. And so the offence of perverting the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. My Lords, the same principle should apply here. A deliberate breach of the duty of candour is not merely a failure to provide information. In serious cases, it may impede the investigation, delay accountability, hinder the discovery of the truth and undermine public confidence in public institutions.

Indeed, experience shows that some of the most significant public scandals have been made far worse by subsequent efforts to conceal the truth about the original incident. So the question for the government in many ways is a simple one will there be cases of deliberate concealment by public officials that are so serious that a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment would be inadequate? My Lords, I suggest that it's all too easy to imagine such cases. This bill should make it clear that a breach of the duty to be honest and open is not some mere administrative infringement, but a serious offence, which in some cases is more akin to perverting the course of justice.

I suggest that pinning the maximum to the maximum for the offence in clause 14 strikes the right balance. Of course, judges would have their ordinary duty to impose a sentence based upon the facts of the individual case, and only the most serious cases would ever approach the statutory maximum. But my Lords, maximum penalties serve an important function in and of themselves. They express Parliament's view of the seriousness of particular conduct, and help communicate the standards of behaviour which Parliament expects.

This amendment is not intended to secure longer sentences for their own sake. Its purpose is to ensure that the structure of the Bill supports the objective that underpins it, fostering a culture of openness, accountability and candour in public life. If this bill is to change culture, it must send a clear message. Candour is expected, concealment is unacceptable, and those entrusted with public responsibilities should never conclude that withholding the truth is safer than disclosing it.
17:54
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I've added my name to my noble friend Baroness Brinton my noble friend Baroness Brinton amendment because I believe we need much clearer accountability at the top of NHS trusts. We have seen too many cases where serious concerns about patient safety have been about patient safety have been raised, sometimes repeatedly. But those responsible for running the organisation failed to act and too often protecting the institution's reputation has taken priority over addressing the problem. I'd like to give a personal example.

Many of your Lordships will have heard of Baby Peter, baby P, who died in the Tottenham side of Haringey. I was the MP for the other side, Hornsey and Wood Green baby Peter was taken to a clinic in Haringey, where the doctor failed to notice the variety of injuries. Now Great Ormond Street had set up that clinic because they needed to demonstrate outreach work to get foundation status at that clinic. It was a junior doctor who failed to notice the many injuries.

Three of the four doctors at that clinic were either the one had left, two were on gardening leave. They'd been made to sign non-disclosure agreements. The one junior doctor who was left there pretty much to work on her own was the one who saw baby Peter and failed. Together with Tim Donovan of BBC London. London as them was, we found that Great Ormond Street had actually secretly well commissioned a secret investigation by Sybert head. It was called the Sybert Hodge Report, and it found them wanting.

And they found them guilty of employing a junior doctor who was so underqualified it was unspeakable. What happened? I'm sure you all know the story, but Great Ormond Street hid that report, failed to disclose it. I went to the board. I presented to the board. The board told me to get lost. Basically, the chair of the board was not having any of it. And all of the members of the board were silent about what was happening. Well, you all know what happened.

And I think this goes to the heart of institutions who are considered too important or too big to fail. And that is what we seek to address with this amendment, because it would place clear responsibilities on NHS boards and individual board members to report evidence of systemic medical malpractice or serious wrongdoing, and require trust to publish codes of conduct, setting out what is expected of those in charge. And that seems to me entirely reasonable. Staff who raise concerns about patient safety should know that those concerns will be taken seriously and the responsibility does not somewhere stop somewhere below board level.

So I leave. I end my amendment by saying this is a real life, real time example of what we are talking about, and I'm sure it is not an individual occurrence. When things have been kept secret, the truth has been hidden to save the reputation of a wonderful hospital like Great Ormond Street. But I think they could be even more wonderful if they had said, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

found a problem and we've got a grip on it. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I didn't intend to stand and speak on this group of amendments. Actually, I'm here to support a later amendment about the later amendment about the independent public Advocate. But sitting and listening and having been in the position of someone who's gone through two rounds of who's gone through two rounds of public inquiry, had led a very large organisation rightfully put into special measures in two into special measures in two different kinds of ways, actually, both through our inspectorate, but also actually through the, the, the aegis of a specially set up ministerial board to hold us to account on the basis of that public inquiry.

Actually, I think these are really important amendments and important group of amendments to support, because there has to be as many different levers as possible, I think, to encourage very senior and actually junior operational people inside big, high risk
17:58
Lord Roe of West Wickham Portrait Lord Roe of West Wickham (Labour)
-
-
endeavours to take decisions, even if it's difficult in in the light if it's difficult in in the light of logical kind of systems of decision making. And the reason I say that is obviously we're approaching this from when it's approaching this from when it's gone wrong. Actually, I think if these amendments pass, you start to address some of the things that might stop it going wrong in the first place, because you almost force organisations to then train their people better in decision their people better in decision making, in record keeping, to apply a system so that even if something goes very wrong and I've worked my whole life really in occupations where you can do the right thing morally, you can take what seems, on the face of it, the right decision at that moment in time based on the information you have, and I'm afraid, still get it desperately wrong, sometimes with fatal consequences.

You want to be in a place where actually you understand that telling the truth, even if that has happened, is actually going to protect the reputation of your organisation for the longer term. Because my experience is that it does when you come clean. And secondly, that you don't just have an incentive in the context of consequence, but you understand that if you can justify your logic, having recorded it at the time, and you have taken a decision in good faith, you should not fear criminal sanction because the reality of criminal law, and I understand this, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I've spent so much time in this space is it will not apply to you because you have done all the things you reasonably could with the information you had.

If you're not in that position, then I'm afraid you probably do have to accept there is an element of either criminal negligence or something more pernicious, and we shouldn't seek to kind of excuse or present a foil for that. So I just thought I would stand and make that point because sitting here listening, having been in that position, I actually think this is a very important group of amendments that I would certainly seek to support. And I've been sat and thinking and challenged.
18:00
18:00
18:00
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
amendments is to clarify which functions of higher education providers fall within the scope of schedule two, so that there's a schedule two, so that there's a greater certainty about where the duty of candour and accountability apply. Now, the government has acknowledged that universities perform public functions, including perform public functions, including teaching and awarding degrees, but its position is important questions about the boundaries of those functions to be resolved on a case by case basis. What about activities such as student welfare and pastoral support, safeguarding accommodation, complaints and appeals, or the way that universities respond to serious incidents? These are a big part of what universities do, and the decisions they make can have a huge and lasting impact on students lives.

These amendments spell out exactly which activities by universities that I'm talking about. They cover admissions and assessment, academic progression and disciplinary disciplinary processes, student support and welfare, safeguarding accommodation, complaints and appeals, and responses to serious incidents, including student deaths and subsequent investigations. These amendments give us a clearer picture of which university activities should count as public functions, and help ensure that the right standards of openness and accountability apply. The importance of this question becomes painfully clear when we hear from families who've lost a child while they were at university, a parent who contacted me through for the 100 told me that their son died by suicide in April 2022, just four hours after university informed him that a restriction it had already imposed upon him had been escalated to a complete ban from campus.

The family hadn't known he was facing disciplinary action after his death. The parent described to me a long and difficult process of seeking answers, including the struggle to obtain information and get the university to answer their questions properly. Even after the inquest, their attempts to gain to obtain a full response to their concerns continued for a further 18 months. Families should not have to spend years seeking information, answers and accountability while they're already dealing with an unimaginable loss.

The National Review of Higher Education Student Suicide Deaths, published in 2025, recorded concerns from families about transparency, communication and their involvement in investigations. It recommended a duty of candour tailored to higher education, and those concerns underline why we need to be clear about the responsibilities that apply when universities make decisions around students welfare and respond to serious incidents. A government letter of the 1st of September recognises that some university activities are public functions, but it just leaves too many questions about the other important areas.

It doesn't make clear how the ethical conduct requirements in chapter two are intended to apply to universities. These amendments would help to clear that up. They would give university students and their families a clearer understanding of where these responsibilities lie, while still allowing individual circumstances to be considered. If there are concerns that extending these provisions to higher education would mean universities become responsible for providing healthcare or guaranteeing every student safety, I can reassure you that this is not what these amendments are about.

There's an important difference between a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, and a duty to be open and honest about what happened. If something goes wrong, the bill's duty of candour and assistance is about openness and cooperation in the inquiries and investigations it covers. It means being prepared to explain what an institution knew, what it did and why. I want to put four specific questions to the Minister, reflecting concerns raised by families through the for the 100. On the government's intended treatment of higher education, does the government support.

Does the government consider pastoral support, student welfare, safeguarding and university arranged accommodation to be. Activities forming part of the provision of higher education? Does that extend to academic disciplinary processes, student complaints and appeals, and responses to serious incidents, including student deaths? If these are public functions, is there a reason they should not be expressly identified in schedule two? Rather than leaving the boundaries to a case by case, judicial interpretation, how does the government ensure that chapter two ethical requirements apply to the relevant public functions and higher education providers? So I really like the government to explain how the bill will operate, where a university's activities involve both public functions and arrangements with private contractors.

On my amendment 66 a this moves on to all of your your your Lordships here because I don't understand why politicians and us should be held to a lower standard of honesty than other public officials. That's what this amendment is about. Why are members of this House and other UK parliaments and assemblies excluded from this new offence of misleading the public? And is it clear enough when the offence applies, the government has decided that intentionally or recklessly deceiving the public on matters of serious public concern should be a criminal offence for public officials? We're talking about serious deception proved to the criminal standard in court, not making a mistake, not getting something wrong or changing your mind.

The offence will apply to Ministers, civil servants, police officers, members of the armed forces and other public officials. But members of this House of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senator Comrie and the Northern Ireland Assembly are excluded and I simply don't understand why that distinction has been drawn. If the purpose is to improve accountability in public life, shouldn't that principle also extend to this House, to people who actually make laws, scrutinise government and speak to the public on matters of national importance? There's a second issue.

This amendment is for the uncertainty about when someone is acting in their official capacity. The bill makes the offence dependent on a person acting in their capacity as a public, official or public authority, but does not clearly define what that means. People should be able to understand the law before they act. It's been raised that law. The Law Commission previously warned that the meaning of acting in an official capacity was insufficiently clear in its examination of misconduct in public office.

So this bill abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office because of the uncertainty around it. Yet the new offence of misleading the public actually relies almost on the same language. So shouldn't we be careful not to repeat the very problem that this bill is meant to address? We've already seen the difficulties that can arise. Actually, I was going to talk about the case against Boris Johnson. I'll skip that. When creating a new criminal offence, should Parliament not seek to provide as much clarity as possible, rather than leave key questions about its scope to be settled by the courts, this amendment would change members of this House, the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Select Senator Comrie and the Northern Ireland Assembly and bring us all into the definition of public official for the purposes of duty of candour and misleading the public offence.

It applies the principle of accountability to those who make our laws, as well as those who implement them. Secondly, it protects parliamentary proceedings and political opinion. Nothing said or done in proceedings of any UK Parliament or legislature can be caught by these offences. The amendment also expressly protects expressions of honesty held political belief or opinion by members of those parliaments and assemblies. So it's not about restricting debate in Parliament or criminalising political differences. It's about holding politicians to account for serious deception.

And thirdly, it clarifies when certain office holders are acting in their official capacity. It provides that members of this House and other UK parliaments and assemblies, Ministers and specified mayors are treating as acting in their official role when speaking to the public about matters of serious public concern, while still being free to express their political views. Communications made in a judicial capacity or concerning solely private life, family life or private business are obviously excluded. Fourthly, it clarifies what constitutes harm for the purposes of the offence it provides that harm can include undermining public confidence in public authorities, public officials, the exercise of public functions or democratic processes.

And then it identifies six purposes for which a such a communication might be made. It covers situations where deception could have serious consequences, such as misleading the public used to justify military action, concealing risks to public safety, or misrepresenting how public money is spent. This is a bill that needs clarification. I have a lot of sympathy for almost all the amendments that we've heard from today, and I really do urge the Minister and the government to actually listen and please act on what you're hearing, where criminal law and political speech intersect.

There are difficult questions, but difficulty is not a reason to give to, to, to look away. It's a reason for us to engage, examining the wording carefully and get it right. Oh, and I support the noble Lady, Lady Coffey's Amendment 66 as well.
18:10
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I'm sorry for supporting one of the amendments I have tabled today, and I will reflect in due course on what the noble Baroness has just said in regards to that latter point, because I think she has something there. And it is confusing in this bill that a Minister can be challenged. I'm wondering quite how many complaints will go to the police about the assertions by the Prime Minister that Russia affected the outcome of the.

Or influenced, it seems, the outcome of the referendum on Brexit when later on, Ministers clarified, say repeatedly, the government has said it has had no impact. It may have had tried to but wasn't succeeded. So. So there is an odd thing going on here about what becomes opinion, what becomes debate, what becomes facts. And to that end, very specifically, I'd be grateful if the Minister would commit to publishing all the information given to the Prime Minister when he made those assertions of a serious nature, a serious nature about the impact of the biggest ever electoral vote that happened with the Brexit referendum, and putting doubt that that could have actually been a wrongful outcome.

And for what it's worth, I voted remain. But even still, I don't think the Prime Minister is on shaky ground in in the way he's conducted that. Coming back to my specific amendments, 66 and 69 a so I want to thank the clerk. I won't name the clerk who helped me get this debate into tonight's. Because I did want to amend the FOI act. I wanted to have a look at some other ways of how declarations get made that I believe are in the public interest to fully understand or.

Indeed. But this was the way to do it. And for a start, those amendments 69 A is about basically the House of the Houses of Parliament are not required to basically come up with an ethical code of conduct in how they give information. I think it's a bit odd that they're excluded. All the parliaments are excluded. And I wanted to understand why the Minister thought that was correct, that our own houses don't have to obey to a similar standard that other public bodies do in terms of thinking through what amendment 66 that I've tabled.

This is all about misleading the public. And there's a couple of situations that have come to mind. And one of them is actually the fire drill. When we were evacuated from this chamber, I think it was just last month or whenever it was. And I did try to find out, well, what are the learnings from that? I'd have thought that's in the public interest, recognising that the number one reason that we keep being given on why we need a brand new R&R project, and for all of these houses to be vacated, and the spending of billions of taxpayers money is given as fire.

So I thought it'd be reasonable to try and find out what the learnings and when I did put in an FOI because I couldn't get the answer through normal routes. The entire section on learning from the drill was excluded as being. It was redacted, and it was deemed that this was sufficient for the House of Parliament to use their special FOI exemption, which basically you can't appeal against the decision made. And this is where I start to worry about, well, what else is being concealed? What else is there? And why can't we have somewhat more of a more open approach to considering issues which it may not be the most exciting topic in the world, but there are plenty of others where information is effectively withheld on almost not quite a need to know basis, but almost.

It's like we don't want the public to know are some of the issues that are going on. So we will just hold these things back. I does worry me more broadly about how this will work in practice, about misleading the, the public thinking through what how this applies to Ministers. For example, should I want this bill becomes an Act of Parliament thinking about prison places. It's regularly cited by Ministers about this magic figure of 500 on the government's own website.

It's the. Their statisticians basically say you can't rely on using that number. So why is it that government spokespeople continue on behalf of Ministers to use these phrases when actually their own statisticians are saying, you can't rely on that number? Why is it that we need to. So I'm just I'm concerned about how this becomes almost a tit for tat and escalation, and the police will be involved in trying to judge whether or not to make arrests of government officials, government Ministers, because of things that they say.

I doubt that's the intention of the Ministers who would want to continue to have political debate and potentially misleading. There are other examples. When Ministers put things on the face of a bill can't be challenged. It's their view, it's their opinion. They don't have to release any legal information. And the only way to challenge it is actually to refer the individual Minister as a member of this House to the parliamentary commissioner for standards. It's the only way you can do it.

So I think the government should think carefully, and that's why I support the actual amendment tabled by our frontbench about the guidance. It's going to be so key about what officials should or shouldn't do, and be thinking this through and how it relates to other acts of Parliament. It's so complicated. I think, that it gets away from the origins of parts of where this came about the Hillsborough disaster, the Hillsborough disaster and growing up in Liverpool, being a school at the time, it was something that impacted the city.

But of course, more broadly than that, it had made sure that there was a reduction in the trust of the people we should trust the police and other officials. So I think by trying to get into this very important bill where this started off, how do we end up with covering all these different ways of making sure that one freedom of speech is protected, but also how you balance and what you consider to be reckless or serious improper is really going to be critical, unconscious of what another amendment basically saying you can't people overreliance self-incrimination.

But there are challenges here about, well, I'm not sure that I did do that or I didn't do it recklessly or I didn't know do it knowing it was going to lead to this outcome. Meanwhile, somebody might be able to find a paper that was published or minutes of a committee meeting found out two years or three years or ten years beforehand, which then led to actually saying, well, how could you have come to that conclusion? Surely you should have been aware.

So I'm looking at this in really in terms of practicality, while still not trying to undermine the original intention that people should tell the truth. It's as basic as that. And the Houses of Parliament should tell the truth and have an ethical approach in making sure that they do so. And with that, I will consider other amendments that we will discuss in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

due course. I wanted to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wanted to. Speak on this issue of privilege, because I've considered it before because I've considered it before in another context, and I find that at times I'm a little bit at times I'm a little bit antipodean, in my view of privilege, in that the Privy Council narrowing in that the Privy Council narrowing down of what it applies to is inconvenient. But we don't need to go into all that, because I think that the issue here is simply as as the noble Lady Baroness Coffey has said, it's about truth and honesty.
18:18
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And basically, if you are knowingly misleading, then there should be consequences. And why should the consequences. And why should the consequences be any less in this House than than elsewhere? And this is not something I have consulted is not something I have consulted colleagues on at all. So I'm. And I apologise that I wasn't present at apologise that I wasn't present at Second Reading because I didn't think that there were things that would interest me. But I think this this issue is quite straightforward.

On the one hand, that if you deliberately mislead, then you should face the same consequences as everybody else. Now, it may not be that the perfect solution has been drafted by Baroness Jones, but I do think that is something that we should continue to discuss as to whether we should have something else or that to bring back at Report stage, because I do think it's unsatisfactory for it to be treated like like other, what I would say, more minor misdemeanours.

I don't think I need to say any more, but I want to investigate this further. I would actually I do have one question for the Minister because I don't actually know the answer to this myself. And if somebody tweets what goes on in this House, what is the privileged situation on that? Is it counted as a sort of recitation and therefore the privilege isn't there or does, because it is the actual proceeding of this House? Does it constitute something that is privileged? Because with the way in which you can disseminate something that is said in this place, if it is misleading and it can sort of go viral, then then you have to take that amplification also into consideration.
18:20
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, very. >> Briefly. >> I become slightly anxious listening to some of the conversation that this bill is going to end up as some sort of kind of ministry of truth. And although I'm very keen on the pursuit of truth, I do think we have to be careful that it does not stifle our ability to speak freely. I wanted to I'm going to speak in the next next week in a couple of groups. But if I can just say at this point, I think that Lord Carlile's amendments were hugely important, I think that the danger of self-incrimination or the dangers of over legalisation, over criminalising that this bill brings about could have the very opposite effect of candour and lead to people lawyering up and shutting up effectively.

Because what you want people to feel is, is that they can speak the truth in good faith without constantly thinking that they're about to be blamed or held criminally liable when they acted in good faith, as it were. And of course, it's very difficult to decide what good faith is. But we do know that there are duties of candour already in the health service, as people have said, and it hasn't led to more truthfulness or candour. It's actually led to a much more cynical closing down of debate.

Secondly, I, I am. Saying that we should have parliamentary privilege is always very difficult, especially in an unelected chamber. One is very conscious of the fact that you're given rights that maybe should be afforded to the rest of the population, and maybe it's in these chambers that we have most weaselly definitions of truth and what is truthful and what is candour than anywhere else. However, I still would like to insist that we have to be in a situation in which parliamentarians speak candidly all the time without constantly and are able to speak out.

So I, I would not I would not extend this bill to parliamentarians because I am worried about an atmosphere that is already in a situation where parliamentarians won't be open and honest. I mean, if I have to listen to another politician, I mean, I don't mean in here, but when I'm, as it were, a member of the public, listening to the radio or watching the TV say, as you will know, we are not able to comment at this time because of the process, because this is a process that needs to be followed.

I mean, it's the opposite of candour. And if anything, I would I worry that there are you know, what we want is we don't want anything else that will stop people speaking out. That's my point. And then just the final thing is, I did want to say that that the the issues that Baroness Jones raised in relation to universities are something we should consider. But one of the things I really thought that was very compelling in what she said was that it shows when institutions sometimes can lose perspective about what their role is, that they can get themselves into trouble.

If for those people I know who work in universities, for example, they no longer are considered to just be academics, but have has to be social workers would be parents. There's a real infantile infantilization, in fact, of students, but there's so much duty of care that they're expected to have, they've got to a point where they actually can't teach. And if anything, what we need to do is to make sure that the particular function of one organisation or administration is narrowly drawn and not covering everything.

And one of the reasons why so many of our public sector organisations get into the mess they do get into is because they've forgotten what they were meant to be doing, which they don't do very well taking on, a lot of which they now neglect, taking on a lot of things which they're not expert in, and get themselves into all sorts of a mess. But I do think universities are now in a situation where I'm afraid they are covering up precisely because they have forgotten what they were there to do.

And we are here to tell the truth. We should at least do that and not be with that without fear or favour. And and I don't want anything. I don't want another code of conduct imposed on parliamentarians. Let me tell you, that won't lead to more truth. It'll just lead to more, you know, avoid using the. I'm not doing very well at this myself. Choosing our words too carefully instead of actually being frank and thinking out loud and actually trying to solve problems, we'll end up just watching our backs.

And that's the very thing. We don't want to come from this bill.
18:25
18:27
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> My Lord. Excuse me. This has been an interesting and important and wide ranging debate. And this group of amendments is is principally about the application of the duty of candour, which obviously the government takes very seriously. And the issues raised by noble Lords seek to address concerns which which the government does understand that we may not achieve through the provisions of the Bill, the culture change we seek in different ways. So I'll try and deal with those with those concerns in that spirit.

It is through the miracles of grouping that we have such a coherent and large group of amendments to deal with here. But before I speak to those, I wish to turn first to a modest collection of government amendments tabled in my name. Government amendments 1516, 141, 149 and 151 are minor but important changes that strengthen the existing duty of candour provisions in the Bill. Currently, the Bill does require a coroner to issue a compliance direction to any public authority or public official that is an interested person.

Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, government Amendment 15 seeks to remove ambiguity regarding suspended inquests by making clear that where proceedings have been suspended, the coroner is not required to issue a compliance direction. However, if proceedings are resumed, the obligation on the coroner to issue a compliance direction is reinstated. This approach seeks to preserve the intent of the duty of candour, while at the same time respecting the statutory framework contained in the 2009 Act.

Government amendment 16 extends the finding power available to coroners as set out in schedule six of the 2009 act. The extension captures instances where compliance direction is issued by a coroner, and the interested person, subject to it, cannot provide a reasonable excuse for their non-compliance. This change strengthens the utility of compliance directions, and will ensure that coroners have the full range of familiar enforcement options. Government amendment 141 clarifies that the Common Council of the City of London is a local authority.

For the purposes of this bill, and as the noble Lady Baroness Hayman. How can we accurately predicted. I can't immediately confirm the position on Epping Forest, but I do take it very seriously. Along with Hampstead Heath, so I'll check and get back to her. But only in its capacity as a local authority or Port Health authority, and not in its private capacities, which fall outside the scope of the bill. Why was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the point about coroners? I realised we've moved on to Epping Forest and Hampstead Heath, but I wonder if the noble Lord would agree to publish the correspondence agree to publish the correspondence between himself and myself about resources for coroners, because it touches on a point made by the noble Lord Lord Wolfson earlier on about the impact assessment and about the impact assessment and before we discuss it later in the proceedings about resources, I think it would be helpful for the House to see both the letter to him, but also his his reply, which came only today.

And even if it was just placed in the library, I think it would be for the convenience of the house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Certainly I'll check with my officials, but I don't have any objection in principle to that at all. I signed it off this morning, all. I signed it off this morning, so I know what it says, as it were, but I'm sure that will be fine. And but I'm sure that will be fine. And it is obviously germane. Additionally, government amendments Additionally, government amendments one four, nine and 151 clarify the powers available to the Scottish Ministers and the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland to make regulations to commence the parts in the Bill for which they have competence.

Turning now to amendments from other noble Lords Amendments 12 and 14, tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Chakrabarti relate to compliance direction, service provisions for statutory inquiries, I think, as she acknowledged, are already provided for in the Inquiries Rule 2006, which is why they do not appear in this bill. Non-statutory inquiries by their nature have no such provision, so the Bill provides them in the context of compliance directions made under the Bill. However, I am open to looking at where the bill might helpfully provide clarification clarification and I certainly intend to return to this point at report.

Turning now to the probing amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which seeks to ensure that the duty of candour and insistence extends automatically to independent panels and reviews established by the Minister of the Crown. I note there were similar amendments to this tabled in the other place. The duty of candour and assistance applies to all statutory inquiries and non-statutory inquiries, as set out in schedule one. Until now, non-statutory inquiries have not been clearly defined, so the Bill sets out the criteria for an inquiry where the duty of candour and assistance will apply.

Most independent panels, like the Hillsborough Independent panel, would meet this definition of non-statutory inquiries in the Bill, so we would expect the duty to apply to similar panel investigations or reviews in the future. However, reviews can be held on a range of issues for example the net zero review and a number of others, and we don't think it's appropriate to apply these duties in all these circumstances. The Cabinet Office are currently undertaking work to look at how inquiries could be reformed, including how different types of inquiries, reviews and investigations could be more clearly defined and best be used.

There's always a slight misalignment of timing with these things, but. But I can reassure the noble Lady that this work is underway, and this work will inform how the duty is used in relation to those reviews going forward. Turning to the important amendments, 18 and 20, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Carlile, the bill replicates the protection against self-incrimination in the Inquiries Act 2005, and the inquest or Fatal Accident Inquiry legislation that applies in the different parts of different parts of the UK.

It can and has been the case that witnesses do not provide an answer or evidence due to the protection against self-incrimination. In such situations, the Attorney General can, and indeed has issued an undertaking that information provided by a person to an inquiry that may be self-incriminating may not be used in criminal proceedings against the person. The noble Lords men would remove the protection and replace it with a provision to the effect of what could now already be in an.

In an Attorney General's undertaking, namely, that information provided in compliance with the duty of candour may not be used in criminal proceedings to prosecute the person who provided. I do understand the intention behind this amendment, and I'm very happy to. To read the more detail document he promised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if the noble Lord would. The Minister would tell us how many attorney generals directions of attorney generals directions of that kind have been given in the last ten years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last ten years. I'll happily check. But the decision by an Attorney general to give an undertaking is taken after consideration of a range of matters against a public interest test. Given the duty applies that inquiries, we are being consistent with the process that is followed at inquiries now, where the Attorney General is asked to provide an undertaking and will decide whether it is appropriate to provide one in the circumstances. Turning now to amendment six, A tabled by the noble and learned Lord Keen.

This would supply the duty of candour obligations in larger inquiries where they may might not be practical. The noble and learned Lord is raising an important point, and it's certainly not the intention of this bill or the duty of candour to impose impractical processes on public bodies. We recognise that sometimes the requirements for officials to proactively notify an inquiry or investigation, where they have grounds to believe they may be relevant, would be impractical for the inquiry itself. Clause three two, therefore provides important flexibility for inquiries and investigations to alter the requirements for public officials and authorities to notify the inquiry or investigation if they have reason to believe they are relevant.

Clearly it would be impractical impractical, for example, for every NHS worker who responded to the pandemic to notify the Covid 19 inquiry of their possible relevance. The same concern does not apply to the obligation under clause two for inquiries will issue compliance directions to public authorities where they are relevant and individual officials where they would be of assistance to the inquiry. Compliance directions can specify the assistance required. Required, giving inquiries, control of the information and assistance they require.

They do not need to oblige multiple officials to provide duplicate information. Turning to amendment 19, which would require the government to publish statutory guidance about how the duty will interact with other duties. The Bill is already clear that the duty of candour does not require public authority or public official to breach any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under enactment or rule of law, and is subject to such other exceptions as are provided for by any other enactment. While not required, the government does intend to publish guidance guidance about the duty before it commences.

The I apologise for promoting the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, earlier. Promoting people's. Better than demoting them, but yeah, he asked me about guidance and we. We will. In relation to an earlier group of amendments, we will be publishing guidance. I cannot undertake to produce a Report stage, but I promise to share it with with the opposition and other parts of the House when we have it. Amendment 23 by the noble Lord. Lord Will seeks to extend freedom of information obligations to service providers covered.

Brought into scope of the duty of candour and assistance by clause four of the Bill. We think it appropriate to extend the duty of candour and assistance to private bodies with relevant public responsibilities. We'll come back to this in our discussion about subcontractors later, within the specific context of an inquiry or investigation. However, they remain private bodies and we do not think this bill is the place to begin altering the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Can I now turn to the amendment from my noble friend, Lady Levitt? And of course I shall take the opportunity, as I did at Second Reading, to thank her for all her work and support on this bill.

Hitherto I'm standing in big shoes, and turning now to her amendment 27, which would replace the maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for both the offence of the duty of candour and assistance with 14 years in prison. In line with the other offences in the Bill relating to misconduct in public office, I hope my noble friend will understand that we've set the maximum penalty for a breach of the duty of candour and assistance offence at two years imprisonment to bring it in line with section 36 of the Inquiries Act, 2005.

So that's the rationale, which allows for the court to make an order to direct compliance with sections 19 or 21, the maximum penalty for breaching that order is two years in prison imprisonment. Given that both the duty of candour and assistance are focussed solely at inquiries and investigations, the government considers that there is a strong rationale for maintaining maintaining consistency with the existing maximum penalty. Turning now to amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, this amendment seeks to strengthen codes of conduct for NHS Foundation trusts by mandating reporting of concerns in relation to systemic malpractice or serious wrongdoings relating to patient safety.

I understand what the noble Lady seeks to achieve with this bill. With this amendment, and I note also the comments of Lady Featherstone about her experiences in as an MP in with the NHS and her comments at Second Reading. Also, I pay tribute to her for all the sincerity that she has brought to this discussion. The Bill already recognised that different public authorities will need to tailor their own codes of ethical conduct to respond to the specific needs of their organisations and service users.

And it's the government's view that the existing approach is flexible enough to ensure public authorities are able to do this, while being clear about strict minimum standards for what codes of ethical conduct must include. But I hope it's also reassuring to the noble Lady, Lady Brinton and to Lady Featherstone, to note that Department of Health and Social Care are now reviewing their own policy with a view to making it more effective. Turning now to amendment 64, 65, 67, 69 and 140.

I thank the noble Lady, Lady Jones, for bringing forward these amendments, which seek to ensure higher education providers are brought into scope of the provision of the Bill insofar as they exercise functions of the public nature, the definition of a public authority and public official for the purposes of the duty and candour and assistance is analogous to that in the Human Rights Act, which includes any individual or any body carrying out a public function. As far as that public function is concerned.

And I can assure her that universities are captured by this definition. This means they must comply fully of the fully with the duty of candour of the distances, enquiries and inquiries and inquests. The requirement to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct through a code of ethics is restricted to core public public bodies and therefore does not extend to universities. However, registered higher education providers are subject to regulation by the office for students, which sets out the ongoing requirements, and it'll be for the office for students to deal with the specific questions that she raised with me about their.

Their responses to particular aspects of the life of universities. And I hope with this clarification about the role of the Office of Students, the noble Baroness would withdraw her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments, turning. Sorry. Yes. Drop the noble Lord. But he will recall I raised this issue as well recall I raised this issue as well at Second Reading, and I was grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment today, introducing this amendment today, just for the purpose of the families, not least those in the. For the 100 who have actually experienced the deaths of students. But it could apply to academics as well. Will the noble or the well. Will the noble or the Minister confirm that where there has been the suicide of an academic or a student, that it will then be possible for the terms of the duty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of candour to totally apply to a university in those circumstances. I'll happily check because I obviously don't want to get it wrong, but I would assume that the answer to that question is that if there is an inquest in those circumstances, then it certainly would apply. But but but but I would apply. But but but but I certainly will happily check, and I do absolutely understand the do absolutely understand the concerns of families of students who who have committed suicide.

So I'll happily come back on that, can I? I'm running out of time. I've got 3 or 4 minutes left, but I get there, I promise. Turning to amendment 66 and 69 a in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, amendment 66 a in the name of the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. These amendments seek to extend the application of duty of candour, assistance, and the offence of misleading the public to your Lordships in this place and members of this.

The other place. It is a long standing constitutional convention that Parliament regulates its own affairs. Parliament has its own arrangements for ensuring accuracy and truthfulness in proceedings, including processes for determining if members have misled the House. The government did think very carefully about who the offence should apply to, but Parliament has be available to Ministers. We therefore take the view that it is not appropriate to extend the offence to backbench parliamentarians. I think this is the first time I've spoken from this Dispatch Box where I've enjoyed the support of Baroness Fox of Buckley, so I appreciate that.

On the question of tweets, yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. The noble Lady Baroness Brinton might want to come in as well. Perhaps we're thinking about a Perhaps we're thinking about a different aspect, but we vote. We vote. We are responsible for vote. We are responsible for passing legislation. And I would argue that our processes have failed in the past, and therefore it's probably best if we improve them. And this bill can do that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. And this bill can do that. I don't know if the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. I think my point was slightly different. I mean, I'm looking at Lady Jones of Marcel Commons amendment 66 a and I'm not sure that she's only talking that she's talking about proceedings in Parliament. I think that's specifically excluded. I think it's about the actions of politicians elsewhere. And I wondered if the noble Lord might write to us to explain why parliamentarians should be exempt, given that this amendment proposes exemptions for our our work inside the chamber for fairly obvious reasons.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very happy to to. Right. But the the question of parliamentary privilege. There may be many things privilege. There may be many things wrong with the way we conduct our affairs, and I might not share quite the same view that the noble quite the same view that the noble Lady, Lady Jones, does about that. But. But there is a long standing principle of parliamentary privilege, and I don't think that this this bill is, is, is the right place to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place to. Again, but I don't think I'm misreading the amendment. The the amendment is permitting parliamentary privilege. It's saying that other activities by politicians would be caught by the duty of candour. I mean, perhaps the noble Lord could write if he wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I'll happily, right and happily discuss it further with. With noble Lords. But but anyway, With noble Lords. But but anyway, let's let's go forward on that basis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames for Marks of Henley on Thames for tabling amendment 68, which seeks to probe the definition of public authority in line with the provisions of the legal duty of candour. The legal duty only applies in particular circumstances. When, to put it simply, something has gone wrong and there is already an inquiry or investigation underway.

We've therefore applied it widely. The provisions in chapter two on codes provide a more substantial ongoing requirement in the bodies will need to maintain a comprehensive code of ethical conduct that covers how their employees must conduct themselves when going about their business. We have focussed on the public sector as the government has some control of these bodies, we consider it appropriate to set more substantive, ongoing requirements that will deliver the change in culture that I think we all want to see as a consequence of this bill, the noble Lords amendment would force all bodies who perform any public functions to adopt a code of ethical conduct and to apply the code even to functions that are entirely private.

The government will seek will issue statutory guidance which will seek to provide clarity to public authorities on whether they fall within the scope of the bill, and we will deal with the question of subcontractors in a later group day. And finally, my Lords and Government amendments 151614, 1149 and 155 1st May be technical in nature, but they are important for ensuring the consistency of decision making in the coronial jurisdiction. On the question of impact assessments, we will. We are publishing a new one this week on the changes that have been made to the bill, and we will publish another one at Royal Assent.

I'm grateful to the thoroughness for which Your Lordship. Yes, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord sits down. Can I just take him back to what he said in response to amendments 18 and 20, in response to amendments 18 and 20, in which he stated that the Attorney General has a discretion Attorney General has a discretion to stop a prosecution if there is a risk of the privilege against self-incrimination being part of the evidence in that the cause of that prosecution, would he carefully check that and write to me? Because my understanding is that the Attorney General has the right to stop a prosecution in the way he mentioned in national security cases.

I would not contradict that for one moment. But if there are cases in which, other than Northern Ireland trouble cases, the circumstances he described have occurred, I was very surprised. He didn't know which cases or how many cases. I think he should have known that information for the purposes of this debate. He had plenty of notice of my amendments. So please would he write to me in full justifying the response he gave to me in very short summary, please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course, of course I'll write. I'm. But I am grateful for write. I'm. But I am grateful for the thoroughness with which we've had this debate, and I apologise for the length of my answers, but for the length of my answers, but for the reasons I've given. I hope the noble and Leonard Law Lord Keen

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble and Leonard Law Lord Keen is able to withdraw six a. Was the. Allowed to speak twice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was the. Allowed to speak twice in committee, and I was slightly disappointed that concerns I raised were just brushed away and tried to link up with something to parliamentary privilege. I don't understand why the government has decided that Ethical Conduct code isn't required by House of Parliament or others. I also didn't get an answer to the question about the declaration made by the Prime Minister on interference, not attempted interference, he said. Interference in the Brexit referendum, and I'd be grateful if, when he's mentioned about writing to people with answers in this debate, he would make sure those letters go into the library and that he states now he'll do that so that all member, all members of this House can noble members of the House can understand where the government is taking this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular bill. Yes, I will happily. Right. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I will happily. Right. But and the noble Lady asked me about the Prime Minister's comments on Brexit. I was slightly confused. On the one hand, she seemed to be saying that when things were disclosed by the Prime Minister, there was a gap in the that that there was a gap in the that that wasn't accurate. But in other cases, she was arguing that information should have been released when it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should have been released when it wasn't. But anyway. All right. My Lords, I.
18:52
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Hope I can be brief. I will I will be brief. I'm very, very grateful to noble Lord, the grateful to noble Lord, the Minister, for what he said about the guidance. Obviously, the sooner it's made available, the better. it's made available, the better. But if we if there is some sort of advance sight of it before it's formally published, that would also be very helpful. So no doubt we'll continue to discuss that. If I can just take 30s just to pick up a point on the the parliamentary privilege point.

True. It is that amendment 66 A excludes what said in Parliament, although it does also not apply to any expression of an honestly held political belief or opinion. I can say interesting prosecutions, private prosecutions brought on the basis that something said by a politician was not an honestly held opinion, and I think that illustrates the wisdom of our forebears in placing blanket privilege where it has been resting for many centuries. I think that's also the answer. I don't think the noble Lady Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted oh, got an answer that you've moved.

Got an answer to her question? I think the short answer without without undertaking any legal obligation to the noble Baroness, is that everything said here? There is absolute privilege. If you tweet a report of it, you've got qualified privilege. But the main point about qualified privilege is, in short, it's got to be a fair report. And importantly, you've got to put in your report or you're wise to put in your report that it was said in Parliament. So Lord Wolfson said in in the House of Lords that Mr.

Smith was a fraudster. That's probably OK. Mr. Smith is a fraudster, as Lord Wolfson says is probably not. But with that, and without sending in a note, my Lords, with the committee's permission, I will withdraw my amendments with leave.
18:54
18:55
None Portrait Amendment:8 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

and purpose of the clause, i.e. to establish command responsibility establish command responsibility and makes the clause work better. I think this leadership responsibility on senior public responsibility on senior public officials, I think, is crucial to attempting to restore public trust. attempting to restore public trust. Now, the sanction, the breach of this duty is the criminal offence this duty is the criminal offence in clause five, and it is set at an appropriately high standard. It requires proof, as we heard earlier, of intention or recklessness in the sense of ignoring a foreseen risk.

The Kerslake review provides an example of why the amendment is needed in that in that case, a chief constable provided completely inaccurate evidence to the review, which he later accepted had been a very grave error. But in so doing, he attempted to blame other officers. Under the current draft. I fear he would likely avoid responsibility. And so amendment eight seeks to rectify this. Now, of course, the chief counsel, if the Chief Constable was in fact misled by others, he would still have the legitimate clause five defence of a lack of intent or recklessness.

And that I think that provides the right balance. Amendment 25 in this group, in the names of my friends, the noble Baroness Brinton, and I hope they will forgive me for suggesting this. Attempts to achieve the same result, but is less effective because it doesn't remove the reasonable steps. Caveat which makes it so easy for a public authority leader to pass the buck. So. So that's what I'm trying to what I'm trying to to get at here.

And once more, I'm supported in this amendment by the Hillsborough Law now campaign and justice. I beg to move.
18:57
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause two, >> Amendment proposed clause two, page three. Line two leave out from authority to end of line three and authority to end of line three and insert is responsible for the discharge of the obligation or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obligations. Lady Chakrabarti is. Amendment eight, as she has explained, seeks to ensure that there is absolute clarity about the responsibility of the person at the top of an authority. And I thought that her reference to the Kerslake review was helpful, not just the case for her amendment, but once again to remind your Lordships House about the lengths people will go to to misbehave in public office. And we've been talking about that in many of the groupings this evening, my Lords.

And we have to have a mechanism to, to protect the the truth and make sure that it comes out. I have amendment 25, also signed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which also ensures that a Chief Executive Officer, if they fail to comply with the duty under the bill, either with the intention of their failure will impede the inquiry or are reckless. That personal responsibility on a chief officer or a chief executive of a public authority is equally important in many of the larger cases that we've been talking about today.

This bill is very strongly moving forward towards holding senior leadership and public bodies to account. But if one thinks about the Post Office Horizon inquiry and investigation, it's very clear there that not just the top leaders, but but they certainly I think actually the entire top management team felt that it was appropriate to focus on the good name of the organisation and not to ask the difficult questions, which most most people do when they're on boards, whether public boards or private company boards.

And I'm very grateful for Lord Roe of West Wickham comments in the last group about how important telling the truth is, because it will actually protect the organisation and the people in it, and it changes the culture. And that's the big thing. You can't legislate to change culture, but you can have carrots and sticks, and this amendment is actually a bit of both. The stick is there because at the end of the day, if a chief executive fails on behalf of the organisation to understand what is going on, they can be held accountable.

But the carrot is the really good examples of organisations where that information does flow and people are not afraid to speak. They probably don't even need whistleblowers in those organisations, because the culture is such that decisions are made and people come forward at whatever levels they are to say, I am concerned about that. So I think that's all I want to say on this, my Lords, except just to say it's not just about Post Office Horizon. Practically every inquiry that we have discussed today, there have been failings at the most senior level in the organisations, including, sometimes, I'm afraid, my Lords, in government, and that is why we need either this amendment or lady talk about his amendment eight.
19:00
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the amendments in this >> My Lords, the amendments in this group, of course, share a common desire to see the head of public authorities take greater authorities take greater responsibility for their organisation's compliance with the duty of candour, and amendment 8 in 25 would therefore have the effect of making the head of a public authority responsible for the compliance of their public authority and, as a consequence, guilty of an offence where the public authority failed to comply with the duty of candour.

Now, my Lords, there is a balance to be struck here. Of course, those responsible for a failure to comply with the duty of candour must be held responsible. But that desire for accountability ought not result in dedicated public servants, who have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that their organisation complies with the duty of candour being criminalised. There is a further point that should be considered here. What would an extremely tightly drawn responsibility to ensure compliance? Due to the effective recruitment of senior public officials? A candidate for a role as head of a public authority might well see that there was a risk of being prosecuted under the stricter responsibility as a barrier to taking on any such role, and I wonder if the government has addressed the impact of that risk, if such an amendment as that proposed here was to proceed.

The Lords. I do not question for a moment the well-meant intentions of the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, in bringing forward these amendments, but I would suggest that there are practical issues which Ministers would have to consider very carefully before placing any tighter definition of responsibility on the heads of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public authorities. I'm obliged. Sits down. I wonder if I might just ask him a question. My amendment sits on line 21 on page amendment sits on line 21 on page five. That's clause five one B little two. This would become little three. And before that it little three. And before that it says it talks about failure to comply and failing to failure will comply and failing to failure will impede. This is not a general classification. It sits very firmly within the much more general failure, which will not have happened entirely without the knowledge of people at the top of the organisation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nevertheless, nevertheless, may I suggest that the tightening of this liability is one that has to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this liability is one that has to be approached with conspicuous care. My Lords, the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the government strongly agrees that there must be individual accountability for the duty of candour and assistance with duty of candour and assistance with those who have engaged in state cover ups are held responsible. The Bill has been designed to deliver Bill has been designed to deliver precisely this. The most senior individuals in a public authority is under a specific duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure their authority complies with its obligations under the duty of candour.

If they fail to do so, they face prosecution. They can, of course, also be prosecuted as an individual official in their own right if they breach the duty of candour personally, and if anyone in a management position has consented or consigned connived with the breach of another, they can also be prosecuted. We think the right approach is to hold the heads of authorities accountable for things they can reasonably be expected to do or not do, and that and that is in the spirit of command, responsibility.

And we are confident that such accountability will have the effect of driving positive cultural change. Turning to the amendment eight, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti, this is a different effect. It provides that while the duty is on the public authority, the head of the authority is responsible for the discharge of that duty. In effect, that means the duty is not actually on the public body, but only on the head. We think it is important that the duty of candour applies to public bodies corporately, as well as officials individually.

Inquiries and inquests can and do regularly issue requests to authorities corporately. But the amendment would mean the body would not, in effect, be under the duty of candour, rather that the head would be individually. This creates an inconsistency and we don't think it will be practical, practically effective, as I've set out, the Bill already provides for command responsibility and has clear provisions that place a specific duty on the head of an authority to take all reasonable steps to ensure its compliance.

We are confident that these are strong and leave no gaps, but we are open to considering alternative formulations, and we will consider the existing provisions carefully. In the light of both these amendments. I therefore hope the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
19:05
19:06
19:07
Baroness Sanderson of Welton Portrait Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
the bill is about targeting and ultimately dismantling the institutional, institutional institutional, institutional defensiveness that stops people getting to the truth. While the IPA is the person whose job it is to is the person whose job it is to represent those people, when those institutions have let them down. So institutions have let them down. So if I may, I will focus today on amendments nine and 125. In the amendments nine and 125. In the name of my noble friend Baroness May of Maidenhead, who is very sorry that she cannot be here.

I too am sorry, because having put my name to them, I'm afraid it means that instead of a former Prime Minister, you have me as a rather poor tribute act. Nevertheless, I hope the rationale behind the amendments will remain clear. So turning to amendment nine, this would make it explicit on the face of the bill that public authorities and public officials are required to operate the duty of candour in any dealings with the IPA. While the bill contains a broader general duty of candour, the specific naming of the IPA serves several purposes.

Firstly, it provides a legislative coherence with the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which created the office of the IPA. Secondly, it recognises the unique role of the IPA in delivering the strategic objectives of this bill. And thirdly, it helps establish the IPA as someone who cannot be disregarded. And really, it's this last point that is so crucial because it's this that is potentially so transformational, transformative. As we've heard lots of people have discussed today, one of the many recurring themes that run through the disasters and scandals of previous decades is the egregious length of time it takes to get to the truth.

Hillsborough, of course, being the most prominent example. And this bill focuses understandably so, on inquests and public inquiries. But as Baroness Brinton mentioned in a previous group, this means that families are already a long way down the line from the original incident. So, as Baroness May of Maidenhead said at Second Reading with regard to Hillsborough, the lies, the manipulation of the facts and the misinformation did not start at the inquest or at the independent panel. They started on and off the pitch.

On the day 15th of April 1989. Now, there wasn't an independent public advocate back then, but had there been then, they would have been deployed in the immediate aftermath, representing all those families, making sure their voices and their legitimate concerns were heard. So we we can't say whether things would have turned out differently. But you can imagine that with a strong IPA and an IPA, perhaps with the duty of candour behind them, then they might have done so looking to the future.

And again, in the words of Baroness May, there may well be circumstances where it will not be necessary to move to a public inquiry. If the independent public advocate can work with families who are affected by a mistake by the state, they can get to the truth at an earlier stage and there will be no need to move to an inquiry. Now, of course, this will not always be the case, but if the IPA is robust and the families have faith in the IPA, then it is possible that where an inquiry is needed, it will not need to be statutory.

And that Second Reading we heard from a number of noble Lords about the proliferation of statutory inquiries, the fact that they're unwieldy, they're time consuming, expensive, yet invariably a statutory inquiry is the default position. And that's because families see it as the only way to get to the truth, because it has the power to compel evidence. So that's why in pretty much nearly every case where the government has tried to establish a non-statutory inquiry in recent years, they've ended up having to convert it after
19:11
None Portrait Amendment:9 Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-

pressure from those affected. And I do think while this bill will go some way to addressing that, I do some way to addressing that, I do think you need the added heft of the IPA, that trust in that position and the belief in that position to really kind of move that forward and give people the trust to perhaps go for a different trust to perhaps go for a different form of inquiry. I shall leave it to the noble Lord Lord Wills, who to the noble Lord Lord Wills, who has great experience and authority in this area, to further demonstrate by his amendments one, two, two and one, two, five b the advantages of non-statutory inquiries.

The role of the IPA, what the IPA, IPA can and should play, and also the benefits of the IPA helping to bring families together after a major tragedy. And I shall listen with interest to amendment 118 in the names of Baroness Hamwee and Lord Alton of Liverpool, which seeks to clarify the IPA's role with regard to inquiries, investigations and inquests. Now, finally, I know we're getting towards the break, but if I could briefly turn to amendment one, two, five.

This is a probing amendment and it seeks to ensure that the IPA is given the right levels of support to establish the necessary frameworks to fulfil its remit. As it stands, the role is structured as two days per week, with the flexibility to scale up to a full time position during an active deployment. Cindy Butts The first IPA, was appointed in September 2025. The following month, she was deployed following the terrible attack at Heaton Park Synagogue. And just to be clear, during the year that she's been operational, she has she has done an outstanding job, but with the best will in the world, she is not yet operationally ready for a tragedy on a larger scale or a tragedy that or more than one incident at a time.

It could happen, and it's hard to see how she will be if she soon reverts to two days a week. And with an office of just three people and an annual budget of just over £500,000, and we are the first country, and so far the only country to introduce this role. And I think that's something we should be really proud of. But it does mean that we have a particular responsibility to to get it right. And to that end, I appreciate that there will be a review of the role next year, and it may be that these questions are for that review.

But given the way, at least to my mind, that the bill and the IPA go hand in hand, it does seem appropriate to mention here, particularly if the government will consider amendment nine, which I very much hope they will. So on that note, I look forward to the noble Lord the minister's response, and I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed clause two, page three. Line seven at end.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page three. Line seven at end. Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. I rise to speak to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name in this group. But can I start by saying that I wholeheartedly support everything wholeheartedly support everything that Baroness Sanderson has just said? She made the case extremely well, and I don't hope I won't replicate what she's already said, replicate what she's already said, because she said it perfectly. My Lords, amendment 122 derives directly from the remarkable achievements of the Hillsborough
19:15
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
Family Support Group and how they managed over decades of persistent, dignified campaigning. Finally, finally, to reveal the truth of what happened to their loved ones what happened to their loved ones and secure some measure of justice. Such agency required quite extraordinary effort and dedication extraordinary effort and dedication by all of its members, and I believe the government needs still to learn the lessons from such an to learn the lessons from such an historic endeavour. My Lords, this Bill seeks to tackle failures in process.

Admirable as that is, it does not address, except indirectly, this crucial question of giving greater agency to the victims and bereaved. The value of giving such agency is demonstrated by what the Hillsborough Family Support Group achieved. And as I said at Second Reading, this bill owes relatively little to all the efforts of politicians, all the efforts of lawyers, and so very much to the group, the way that group campaigned with such dignity and persistence, not over years, but over decades and with such dignity while suffering such terrible loss.

That's what drove my setting up of the Hillsborough Independent panel, which finally got to the truth of what happened. That's what drove the noble Lady Baroness May to support, in the face of considerable opposition, the work of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and she became Home Secretary. That's what led eventually to this bill. Now, I hope the government will recognise the advantages of giving the bereaved agency. If the Hillsborough Family Support Group could be replicated for significant numbers of the victims and bereaved in future public disasters like Hillsborough, so they could act collectively, then that would deal with some of the problems of cost and delay that could well inadvertently flow from this bill.

It could, for example, reduce the number of lawyers that would be involved. And quite apart from reducing the cost of taxpayers, which could run into hundreds of millions of pounds, it could help produce a coordinated response from the victims of state failure, which would reduce delays in reaching resolution of the issues that would flow from that failure. And that matters. As I've said previously during the passage of this bill through your Lordships House, the interests of victims and the bereaved must be kept front and centre in the aftermath of state failure, and those interests can perhaps be summarised as finding the truth about what happened and why, to find it quickly, and for accountability then to follow without delay.

Without that, it's hard for them to find any kind of closure and that must be a priority. Now, the independent public advocate is uniquely well placed to help bring about that collective endeavour. Although the amendment makes this clear, this would only be with the support of the majority of the victims and of the Secretary of State, now Trevor Hicks, the first chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, who served in that role for 16 years, then as president, and Jenny Hicks, the secretary and vice chair for 30 years until the group was wound up in 2021, are both willing to work with the independent Public Advocate to share the lessons they learned in helping and create, create and drive forward that remarkable collective endeavour.

Those setting up the Hillsborough Family Support Group consulted many of those bereaved in previous disasters, such as the Zeebrugge and Lockerbie disasters, and the lessons they learned to such remarkable effect provide a legacy for those they lost. I hope the government will now build on that legacy by giving greater agency to those who lose loved ones in future, and to recognising that funding legions of lawyers isn't necessarily the only way of doing that. Now, all that's needed from the government is a small amount of additional funding for the independent Public Advocate, which, as noble Lady Baroness Sanderson just pointed out, could well repay the cost.

It could save many times more that than the legal fees that could be saved through such a collective endeavour. Now, I understand this is perhaps a new thought for my noble Lord, my noble friend and Minister. And if he's not immediately ready to support the amendment, I'd be grateful if he could agree to meet me and the Public Advocate to discuss how best to move forward on this probing amendment. My Lords, I now turn to amendment one two, five B, which replaces the original amendment 116, and this derives directly from the achievement of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in revealing the truth about what was responsible for that tragedy.

As the Minister who set it up, I faced widespread opposition from my own party in setting it up, and when I came to your Lordships House, the noble Lady Baroness May, when she became Home Secretary, faced similar opposition in continuing its work in our different ways, we were able to face down that opposition, and the panel successfully completed its work. It was uniquely successful in bringing some sort of closure to the tragic saga of Hillsborough, and really all credit is due to the chair, the Bishop of Liverpool and all of the panel's members.

It played a unique part in the administrative process. It was not. An inquest with its specific remit, was not a public inquiry with its specific remit, and both took place before the Hillsborough Independent panel was set up. Both failed to get to the truth. The Hillsborough Independent panel was a fact finding investigation, with the ability to review all the evidence about what happened on the day and and subsequently reach whatever conclusions it felt were justified. Now, a fact finding exercise like that would not supersede an inquest, and it would have to be subsequent to it, nor need it preclude a public inquiry, although it should, in my view, precede it for the reasons that the noble Lady Baroness Anderson said preceding it could save taxpayers considerable sums of money.

The Hillsborough Independent panel costs £5 million or thereabouts, and took two years to complete, compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds of so many public inquiries cost and the very many years they take to complete. And above all, it would ensure that the interests of victims and the bereaved were kept front and centre in the aftermath of state failure. Nor would it enable the independent public advocate this amendment to supersede the wishes of the majority of victims of state failure, nor the decision of the democratically accountable Secretary of State.

It would simply enable the independent Public Advocate to act as the advocate for the victims of state failure and those bereaved by it, to try to trigger such a fact finding decision in order to get to the truth as quickly as possible. The Hillsborough Independent panel is the model, and it worked, and against all the odds, as both I and noble Lady Baroness May can testify, why would the government rule out the possibility of lending its weight to replicate its success in delivering justice for the victims of state failure and those bereaved by it in the future? Now, all that's needed from the government.

And again, I make the same plea as the noble Lady. Baroness Sanderson is a small amount of additional funding for the Independent Public Advocate to ensure they were in a position to deliver immediately when the need arose, apart from how it would help and support the victims of state failure, those bereaved by it. As I've said, it can save many times more money than the ever, ever escalating cost of a public inquiry, which would inevitably cover much of the same ground.

Now again, if the noble, my noble friend and Minister, is not in a position to immediately agree to this amendment, I'd be grateful if he would agree to meet me and the independent Public Advocate to discuss how we might make some progress on it.
19:23
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have. >> The noble. >> Baroness has been remarkably thorough and thank her for that. thorough and thank her for that. I'll try not to repeat too much. My amendment is rather more general and slightly differently focussed from others in the group. I thank the noble Lord Lord Alton for signing it as well. I'd like to ensure that the independent public advocates experience accumulated experience. Her ideas, the views that she's gained from her work can be part of the mix, and that the Secretary of State uses those in codes, guidance, regulations and so on, not only specifically with relation to a particular major incident, but to enable the IPA to be proactive and not contained in a little box.

It's arguable, I suppose, that section 352 A of the Victims and Courts Act covers this, but I'm not convinced about that. But let her be involved, not only if the Secretary of State decides she should be deployed. My amendment mentions the Lord Chancellor as well as the Secretary of State, whether I've got that right, because obviously the Lord Chancellor is also a Secretary of State, as Secretary of State for justice at the moment. But that's the term used in some of the relevant legislation.

The IPA has helpfully written to noble Lords. I think I'm being a little more ambitious, perhaps, than she has been, but she does talk about improving transparency and confidence in deployment decisions by ensuring she's the opportunity to make representations, and those representations are considered. As I say, I'm going a little further. She's also written to the noble Lord Lord Alton. I hope he doesn't mind if I quote a little bit of the latter, saying that she can, because we went to and fro over the wording of amendments on this issue, and she says she can see real value in the IPA having a role in monitoring and reporting on compliance, and also makes the point that without some ability to access relevant information independently, it will be difficult to assess compliance in any meaningful way.

And she also, understandably and frankly correctly refused, refers to the issue of resources to which other noble Lords have referred. One has to. It's not up to this House, but to will the means for. To enable her to fulfil the role that. We all think that the particular IPA. But any IPA should be enabled to fulfil.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said she was diffident Sanderson, said she was diffident about having to fill the shoes of noble Baroness. Her noble friend lady May. Well, she did a very good lady May. Well, she did a very good job, if I may say so, in explaining the terms of her amendment and the need to enhance the role of the independent public advocate, and I'm also grateful to the noble Baroness Hamwee for flagging up the correspondence that we've been having during the recess, which is also included the noble Lord, the Minister Lord Lemos, and also the noble Lord Lord Wills.

My own interest in this began while serving as member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we brought in a report calling for the enactment of the Hillsborough law, the Public Accountability Bill that's before us today. And on becoming chair of the Committee, I asked the noble Lord Lord Wills if he and Cindy Butts, the IPA, would come and speak to the committee, because it seemed to me that the role that they that she could play might pre-empt the need for many of the public inquiries which we've heard so much about, many of which have run on for years, and some of which have cost huge amounts of money and at the end of which have failed to satisfy any of those who appeared before those committees.

So it seemed to me that a more light touch and a more fleet of
19:28
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
foot approach by someone like the IPA might render everyone a, a a IPA might render everyone a, a a service. And I was very struck by service. And I was very struck by how engaged Cindy Butts is in this. She, as we've heard in her first She, as we've heard in her first deployment, went to Manchester to the Heaton Park Synagogue after the attack there and did a first class attack there and did a first class job, but also recognised that the role of the IPA was not in fact necessary because of all of the statutory agencies who had become involved and that they were doing their job properly.

So this wasn't someone looking for more work, as it were. This was someone who understood what her specific and unique role is, and I was struck by what Lady Sanderson said about how this is something that is unique to our own country, but has not been created elsewhere, and it is something we can therefore be proud of, just as we, I think, can be proud of all the work that the Hillsborough Law Now campaign and the various groups that were referred to by the noble Lord Lord Wills, not least in his reference to Bishop James Jones and the work that the independent panel conducted, which was so crucial we wouldn't have a bill here tonight.

As the noble Lord said earlier in his remarks, if it hadn't been for all of that work. But if we've learned anything from this, it is that we do need more resources early on. And I think it's worth just repeating those figures that the office currently has only three staff an annual budget of just over £500,000. And as we've heard, the IPA role is itself formally part time. Now, it is impossible for someone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that kind of Cinderella budget, on that kind of shoestring to carry out the kind of responsibilities that have been placed upon it under the Victims placed upon it under the Victims and Prisoners Act of 2024, the Secretary of State alone decides whether to clear a major incident and deploy the. There's no requirement to consult the IPA or requirement to consult the IPA or explain the decision not to deploy, and that. Can, my Lord, create a risk of inconsistency and undermining confidence in the role.

And I wonder when the noble Lord, the Minister comes to reply, if he will address that specific point about the way in which the IPA is engaged on occasions when it becomes necessary. And if he agrees with the proposition that's been advanced by everyone, that the central purpose should be to prevent investigations into major tragedies. Talking to the independent Advocate. I'll just mention the three particular concerns that she has and that she would like to see incorporated by your Lordships.

Firstly, to recognise that the independent public advocate within the statutory candour framework, including by ensuring that relative relevant public bodies owe a duty of candour to the IPA when she or he is exercising their statutory functions. Is that something the Minister agrees with? Secondly, strengthening the operational resilience of the IPA through appropriate staffing, budgetary allocation and making the role full time. Is that something the noble Lord agrees with? And finally, thirdly, improving transparency and confidence in deployment decisions by ensuring that the IPA has an opportunity to make representation, that those representations are considered, and that a short rationale is published where the decision is taken not to deploy.

I know that Cindy Butts believes that this bill presents an opportunity to get this right for victims, survivors and bereaved families. It's something with which I entirely concur, and I hope that even though this bill doesn't give us an opportunity to make those things happen, as the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee, said, we don't have the the right to the means, but nevertheless we can express our views and prove a noble Lords Minister those views back to his colleagues in the Treasury.
19:32
Lord Roe of West Wickham Portrait Lord Roe of West Wickham (Labour)
-
-
I shall be brief, because I know that we're approaching other business in the dinner break. I wanted to start really just by firstly thanking my noble friend, the Minister, for the amount of the Minister, for the amount of time he's given this group of amendments. I mean, he's really been very generous, particularly across recess. He's met myself and across recess. He's met myself and almost everyone else who stood and spoken and with Cindy Butts, who many of us have also met with, as I said, keeping it brief.

I just wanted to stand in strong support, really, of amendment nine particularly, and recognise that there is a rightful debate to be had across the further stages of this bill around some of the more complex areas of funding and resource, which I think is is relevant, but I think does need discussion. Where I wanted to go really was, again, just to go back to my own personal interest in this bill, which is in my practical experience in both responding to and then dealing with the aftermath of significant disasters.

And I would suggest that putting the IPA on the face of the bill gives someone that victims, whether bereaved or survivors, can turn to in the immediacy of an aftermath when even well intended, intended, intended decisions and agencies are operating effectively are themselves under immense pressure. May themselves not know what other agencies are doing and will not automatically connect information up for victims and families. And this can be very basic stuff. It's not just about candour in the context of people doing something wrong.

If I think about Grenfell, you know, it took a long time for some of those who lost their families to even find out where people were in hospital. That is a really good practical example of where the IPA could step in, where actually it was almost impossible to convene with any power. The other agencies, I wouldn't seek to say any more. I would just really make the point that while I would seek to support this amendment and a deeper discussion on the further set of amendments that are proposed in this grouping, it is for the very reason that there is a gap at the moment that I think the IPA can usefully fill, and that will be done to the benefit of those who have suffered the most in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.

Thank you.
19:34
19:35
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I should start by thanking all >> I should start by thanking all the noble Lords who spent with time time with me on this issue, particularly Lady Sanderson and Lady May, who have been extremely generous with their time. And the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson is absolutely right. This is an area where I feel strongly and the government feels strongly, and we will work together on it. But I do just want to set out a properly. The responses to the amendments.

But. But we will undertake to take it, take it forward. The government fully recognises the importance of openness, transparency and accountability. Following major incidents, victims and bereaved families must be able to have their voices heard and have confidence that public authorities are acting appropriately, and the independent public advocate plays an essential role in achieving this. I want to start by making that absolutely clear. The role of the IPA was deliberately designed as a victim support and representation function, complementing existing investigative mechanisms, and these would otherwise be duplicated.

We would also want the IPA to be involved as promptly as possible. A number of noble Lords have referred to this as inquests, and inquiries may not take place immediately. I made this point at Second Reading. Early support for victims, the bereaved and family members is vital in the aftermath of a major incident. Timely deployment of the IPA is therefore essential to ensure support is available from the outset and to help mitigate the impact of delays before formal proceedings begin.

I a number of noble Lords have mentioned whether the deployment of the IPA at an early stage would save costs on inquiries, or perhaps they would, and perhaps they wouldn't. But it seems to me to be a good thing to do in itself, and I certainly would not align myself with the view that the reason to deploy the IPA is to save money on on public inquiries. So I think we need to be clear about the issue of principle here. But these amendments would significantly expand the standing advocate's role by introducing investigatory functions and requiring the advocate to assess whether these are reasonable grounds to believe that legal duties may not have been complied with.

The government's view is that establishing the facts of a major incident and determining whether legal duties have been complied with are rightly matters for existing investigative and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability mechanisms. Yes. With great respect to my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With great respect to my noble friend that that is not the intention of these amendments. It is not to replace those authorities. is not to replace those authorities. What it is, is to trigger that investigation. And I made it clear investigation. And I made it clear in my remarks that the decision would be for democratically elected decorative Secretary of State, and it would only happen after the majority of the families wanted it. So it gives agency to the families.

But the ultimate decision lies with the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for that. The government's concern. I mustn't The government's concern. I mustn't turn back because you can't hear me. The government's concern is, is The government's concern is, is that we don't want to duplicate or confuse existing investigative confuse existing investigative routes. But. But I do entirely accept, and I will come back to the to the point my noble friend has to the point my noble friend has made about deployment and Lord Alton made the same point as well.

I'll come back to that in a moment, if I may. But the independent, the independent public advocate already has powers to engage with victims, understand and communicate their concerns, and ensure that their interests are represented to relevant authorities. Throughout the aftermath of a major incident. The IPA has a statutory responsibility already to advise Ministers on the interests of victims, and has the power to publish reports on matters arising from major incidents. A number of noble Lords asked about how, as it were, she can make her voice heard once.

Once she has heard from the families and the victims, and that we believe those powers already exist, then the existing framework we. We believe that the existing arrangements provide the standing advocate with flexibility to carry out those functions without requiring additional provision on the face of the bill. Turning to Lady Ham's amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know we're running well over time, but I just really do want to pick him up on this very crucial pick him up on this very crucial point. There is a fundamental difference between what the Minister has just said already exists and what these amendments exists and what these amendments would actually achieve, and what they would achieve is putting the they would achieve is putting the Secretary of State on notice that after consultations with the bereaved in the immediate aftermath, the the independent public advocate felt there was a need for investigation.

And if the Secretary of State did not agree with that, then they would have to make an oral statement to the House of Commons where they could be questioned why the Secretary of State thought the existing mechanisms were adequate, and why what the independent public advocate, from her connections with the families, thought they were not. That's the point about it. It makes the Secretary of State accountable. At the moment, the existing provisions mean they can just be ignored.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do understand the point that I that my noble friend is making. I, or at least I think I do, but I or at least I think I do, but I promise to. I'm very happy to meet with him, I and others and indeed with him, I and others and indeed with Cindy Buttstett to deal with with Cindy Buttstett to deal with with this point. But the legislation already provides the standing advocate with interested standing advocate with interested person status at inquest for major incidents to which the IPA has been appointed.

This was a policy choice made during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act, recognising the advocates role in supporting and representing the interests of victims, survivors and bereaved families within those proceedings. Parliament chose not to include a broader participatory role. At the. At that point, the amendment refers to the advocate having a role in all inquiries and investigations and inquests with public authorities or public officials are or may become, participants. The IPA's role is entirely linked to major incidents.

It would therefore not be appropriate in the government's view for the IPA's role to be expanded beyond major incidents as proposed in this amendment, and as it was not intended or designed for this purpose. There is, of course, a clear opportunity to review the role of the IPA and in relation to the noble Lord Lord Alton point about the arrangements for deployment and other noble Lords. Lords have made that point too. I think our view would be that that that review is very eminent.

It will imminent, it will be eminent as well as imminent, and it will take place in 2027. And we will review those arrangements then. We do think, and I'm sure all noble Lords agree with it, the advocate has given time to establish her role and office before that review takes place. The government's also retains the ability to revise existing guidance in light of operational experiences should that prove necessary. Turning now to amendments nine and one, two, five, the amendments seek to confirm that the duty of candour applies to any dealings of public authorities and public officials may have with the Independent Public Advocate, and to provide the independent public advocate with adequate functions to carry out certain tasks related to Public Office accountability Bill.

I think noble Lords, I can see Lady Sanderson smiling. I think noble Lords know that Ministers like me giving giving commitments to fund other bodies at the despatch box don't go down well at with the Treasury, but I do I. I do know that various business cases have already been put in by the IPA and are being considered by my colleague, Minister David Jones. So we, we we will we will take that forward. But she wouldn't expect me to go much further than that, though.

She made the case eloquently for me to do that for similar reasons. We don't consider it appropriate to require the standing advocate to monitor and report on compliance with the provision of this bill. This would represent a significant expansion of the advocate's role and could create with overlap with over ongoing or future investigations. The standing advocate already has powers to publish reports, raise concerns about the treatment of victims, and bring matters to the attention of the Minister and to the attention of Ministers and public and the public.

Can I then conclude these remarks by saying as as I've already indicated, we will continue to discuss these things with all interested peers with Lady Lord Mawson Lord Wills and my noble friend Lord Roe, who has been a robust and conbrio participant in the discussions so far, and as. As the noble Lord Lord Wilson said, I hope we can make some progress on this before we get to report. With that, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure whether the Ministers replied to or commented Ministers replied to or commented on my amendment. He started to say in response to Lady Hamwee. Lord in response to Lady Hamwee. Lord Wills came in and asked a question and he responded, I thought more to and he responded, I thought more to Lord Wills than he did to me, but. Lord Wills than he did to me, but. Perhaps again, it's something that I can leave with the government to think about whether the IPA's general experience is something that the Secretary of State must bear in mind when creating guidance, and so on.

It's a broader point, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different point from one that others have been making. For not quite picking it up. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For not quite picking it up. I slightly went down another road, but I do take the point she makes, and in these discussions we're and in these discussions we're about to have, we will take on that wider conversation as well, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wider conversation as well, and I hope the noble Lady lady will join us in that. My Lords, I'd like to thank all
19:46
19:47
19:49
None Portrait Amendment:21 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-

clause four. Amendment 21. >> Baroness Brinton Lord Oates. I'm very grateful to have spotlight on very grateful to have spotlight on corruption for their briefing, and my amendment 21 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks Henley my noble friend Lord Marks Henley on Thames, who cannot be in his place today. And I've also signed it. We both mentioned at Second it. We both mentioned at Second Reading our concerns that the bill as drafted might not include all the different levels of subcontractors that are frequently subcontractors that are frequently found in today's public authority organisations and all the amendments in this group.

21, 22, 49, one, four, two and one, four, three are in our names, and all of them build on amendment 21 to ensure that subcontractors of all types will be caught by this bill. The bill says that clause four three be a person carries out activities as a service provider to a public authority. If the activities were carried out under a direct contractual relationship with the public authority, end quote. This bill is a very welcome step towards implementing the recommendations from the Law Commission to place misconduct in public office, offence in statute and reflecting widespread criticism of the common law offence, the Law Commission found serious shortcomings in its effectiveness for prosecuting wrongdoing in the public sector and the recommending recommended specific statutory provisions to update the offence.

The Law Commission specifically recommended that contractors who exercise functions or perform perform work for the government should be covered by the offence, with private goods and services representing 30% or around £326 billion of government spending. It is critical that private contractors are covered to ensure meaningful accountability where misconduct occurs while performing public services. The Law Commission recommended that to achieve this, the list of public office holders should clearly include contractors who exercise functions or perform work for the government, end quote.

This language is not included in schedule four of the bill. This is despite the government's impact assessment specifically stating that the definition of the public office holders includes private contractors providing public services for any of the public bodies listed, and the current formulation of sections. Clause 21 risks introducing a too narrow a formula and lacks legal clarity as to when private contractors and subcontractors are included. In addition, the language in the bill is directed clearly at individuals and there is no explicit corporate liability provision within it.

If private contractors are to be clearly caught by the bill, it should be beyond doubt that the offence clause 12 can be committed corporately with accompanying consent and connivance liability for company officers, as in the Bribery Act and current practice in many public authorities to contract out services may also be contracted out further beyond that initial tier. One example that springs to my mind is that of the current practice amongst local authorities to have a principal director contractor for repairs to roads and highways, it's not uncommon for elements of the contract to be sublet a number of times, so that highways organisation may not even be aware of the company's right at the roadside because they are five, six or even further layers of contract below that initial direct contractual company who had the contract with the, in this case, local authority.

And by the way, to be clear, this example about public authorities subcontracting practices, and I'm not aware of any particular problems with highways agencies, whether there are some or not. However, we do also know that these hierarchies of contract have happened in PFI contracts too, which means that the NHS should be covered too. So, my Lords, that's where these amendments come from. The hour is late. I suspect we can't really do the issue, the justice that we want to, but it is important that the layers of subcontractors are caught by this because if you have in a hospital, a hospital porter who is actually subcontracted, fall down the line, who doesn't have any responsibility or no whistleblowing duty in their organisation, you could end up with parts of the bill not being able to work properly purely because of the contractual arrangements.

My Lords, I beg to move.
19:53
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause four. Page four. Line 19 after authority Page four. Line 19 after authority insert or as any subcontractor in any chain of provision to a service provider.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provider. My Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Brinton for moving this group on behalf of Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, and I understand the desire for the definition of public authority and of public official to clearly include subcontractors of various kinds. I understand the government's definition to draw on the Human Rights Act case law to include bodies that have public functions while excluding the private functions of those bodies, and we on these benches are not satisfied that expanding the definition is required.

But we will, of course, continue to listen carefully to the arguments made by noble Lords as the Bill progresses through your Lordships House. I would, however, wish to raise certain concerns with the noble Lord. The Minister, with regard to the government's attempts to ensure that the application of the duty of candour to non-governmental organisations will not have unintended consequences, and in particular, bearing in mind the cost involved in government procurement, to what extent Ministers have engaged with, first of all, potential contractors to the government as to the cost and impact of these provisions on their attempts to carry out government contracts.

Secondly, what engagement there has been with existing contractors to the government to determine what they consider to be the potential impact on their discharging existing contracts by reason of these duties being placed upon them, and over and above that, what assessments have been made of the potential cost to government contractors for the legal advice and related advice that they, as a business, will require, their employees will require and their own subcontractors will require in determining the consequences of being subject to the duties in this bill.

And I'd appreciate if the noble Lord. The Minister could either address those points in his response or undertake to write to me. Thank you.
19:56
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. I thank the noble Lady >> My Lord. I thank the noble Lady on behalf of Lord Marks for raising the topic of how contractors and subcontractors are covered by the various provisions in the Bill. Taken together, these amendments would bring anyone who provides a service to a public authority into. The definition of quote works for, unquote, a public authority for the whole of the bill. They would mean that anyone providing a service is under the duty of candour and assistance and inquiries and investigations, and they are covered by public bodies, codes of ethics and the offences of misleading public and misconduct in public office supply.

We do not think this is a proportionate approach. Anyone providing a service, including cleaning staff, catering staff and stationery suppliers, could be employed by private companies. The bill takes a more targeted approach. Contractors are under the duty of candour and assistance if they carried out activities in connection with the incident. Under investigation. As a service provider to a public authority, and their activities had a significant impact on the members of the public. This only applies to main main contractors.

We recognise that. However, we have heard the views of a number of peers that this should also extend to subcontractors and we are considering that point and we will come back a report. Codes of ethics will apply to those who work for public authorities, not contractors providing services. We think it is right that public bodies should be able to set codes of conduct for their own employees, but private companies providing services should be recognised as such. And there are rules governing public sector procurement separate from the Bill.

But it was regard to the question of Lord Moore. The noble and learned Lord Keen asked me about costs and procurement and so on. I'm very happy to write, but some of those points were covered in the impact assessment and I'm sure will be covered in the revised impact assessment as well. But I'm happy I'll happily take it away and write. We think it is right that anyone delivering a public function can be subject to the misleading of the public offence, but not contractors providing other services that are not public functions.

The misleading the public offence is targeted at those entrusted by the public to provide public functions, abusing that trust by misleading the public contractors of public services who are not delivering public functions themselves are not in that position. Private industries in various sectors are, of course, subject to their own regulations. Similarly, we think it right that the offence of misconduct in public office applies to those who hold public office, not anyone who happens to provide a service to those in public offices, whatever that might be.

I said I would come back earlier to the to to this point, and and some subcontractors will be covered as long as they can come under the definition of a worker, as set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996. I hope with the assurances I have given, I know they're not quite the answers that the noble Lord Lord Marks wanted, but I hope the assurance that I have given about our. Our consideration of the merits of covering relevant subcontractors, and the way I've set out.

The noble Lady. Be satisfied to withdraw her amendment.
19:59
20:00
20:01
None Portrait Amendment:28 Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

October. My noble friend Lord Lemos was kind enough to write to me about my Second Reading speech, and about this amendment, and in his letter he said this the government recognises the Hillsborough Independent panel's recommendation to place police records under legislative control and the strength of concern that important records must not be lost. But he also offers as a reason for not including police records under public records legislation. But police hold large volumes of sensitive records requiring clear rules on selection, transfer, digital capability, archive, archive, capacity, security access, data protection and institutional responsibilities.

It seems to me, my Lords, that these are the very reasons why they should be covered by legislation and not, as currently, by codes of practice and guidelines which are not compulsory and which contain multiple uses of should and could rather than must and will. At Second Reading, I quoted the chilling words of the of the former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Mr. Meredith Hughes, who was in a telephone conversation with the family of one of the Hillsborough victims, and he said that he could take the records into the courtyard and burn them.

And he said he is under no obligation to disclose anything and the papers belong to me. Now. He may just have been engaging in angry rhetoric, but what has taken place during the period in which these codes and guidelines should have been operated, is a number of instances where inconvenient records have been destroyed by mistake. Your Lordships can judge for yourselves whether by mistake can be taken at face value. While there are some shining examples where police forces do employ, employ qualified archivists and records managers, there are few, but there are few of them.

Record keeping is largely unprofessional in the police service, more often, filing and dealing with the archives is left to admin staff and officers or officers who are taken off active duty. The command and control nature of police work means these workers are unlikely to question a command to destroy records. A professionally qualified record keeper would have the status, at least to question that instruction and point out with confidence where it did not meet guidelines, codes or common practices of archiving and record and records retention without putting record keeping in the public and the police forces of the UK and Wales on a statutory basis, there is no impetus for them to professionalise their workforce or to take more care not to make these mistakes.

Since 2023, the Information Commissioner's Office has issued formal reprimands or enforcement notices to at least eight police forces and law enforcement agencies in England and Wales, alongside several individual reprimands or not, or notices, and police forces and law enforcement agencies have been heavily represented in regulatory action. These include the Metropolitan Police, the City of London Police, Greater Manchester Police forces in South Wales, the West of England, Kent and South Yorkshire. Most of those have been censured or reprimanded for severe subject access requirement delays, accidental deletion of body worn video or unauthorised data.

Messaging app usage. In addition, and this is particularly worrying, Northumbria Police deleted material relating to the policing of the Orgreave miners strike just weeks before the Orgreave inquiry was formally set in motion. It does not seem to me, my Lords, that the guidelines and code code are working. Why should we wait even longer and see more records destroyed when we can move to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

better solution? I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
20:06
20:07
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
Hillsborough bill. And as I keep saying this, these objectives must saying this, these objectives must be to find the truth quickly how and why this thing happened, and and why this thing happened, and then for accountability to follow again without delay. DeLay is the crucial problem. So often in these crucial problem. So often in these things, without it, it's incredibly hard for the victims and the bereaved to find any kind of bereaved to find any kind of closure. And that must be a priority of every process that goes through in the in the wake of these state failures.

That's what always been denied for so long to the victims of these disasters, and was so criminally delayed for the Hillsborough families. Now, part of the problem, not the only part, but part of the problem, is the protracted nature of public inquiries that almost inevitably follow failures by the state. They do investigate what happens. They do determine accountability, but the problem is they don't do it quickly. They can't because part of their job is well as investigating the issues of direct concern to the immediate victims of such state failures, they also seek to learn the lessons for public policy in the future, and as a result, they can take and they do take many years and cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

And I agree with my noble friend the Minister, when he says cost must not be the priority here, but it is a consideration. There must therefore be a question about whether public inquiries are always fit to meet the purposes of this bill, and this amendment simply requires the government to address that question. Now, amendment 107 seeks to address the concerns of many victims of state failure, that the offences introduced in this bill might be too lenient. Now. These offences replace those which exist elsewhere, and the sentencing limits for those offences match the recommendations of the Law Commission.

I accept that. However, I hope my noble friend and Minister will recognise that the new sentences will often appear to victims of these offences as inappropriately lenient compared to those currently in effect. For example, some Hillsborough families expressed their view to me that after all the suffering they endure inexcusably not for years but for decades as a result of such offences, a maximum two year prison sentence minimises the seriousness of the offence. Now, in these circumstances, this amendment requires only that these sentences are kept under review and assessed in the context of the severity of the offences committed and the consequences for those who are affected by them.

And, where appropriate, these sentences be revised, where appropriate, to act as the deterrent. They are intended to be.
20:10
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Grateful to Lord Falconer for his amendment 28, which I have his amendment 28, which I have signed, and I agree with everything that he said, and my amendment five in an earlier group followed the same principles and indeed some of Lord Wills in in that group as well, but not just focusing on police on other bodies that needed to to keep records. However, police records have repeatedly been a problem and it's important that they are highlighted at the moment. Amendment 109.

In the name of my noble friend Lord marks, which I have signed, sets out monitoring compliance with the duties under this act. All afternoon and evening amendments have tried to improve the bill to ensure that it will work. But this amendment and some of the others in the group set out how we can judge if it has worked, including Lord Alton's 105 and Lord Wills amendment three, three, eight and 107, amendment 109 says that the Secretary of State must commission and publish annually an independent report which monitors compliance, including the record keeping by public authorities, disclosures and responses, and look at the effectiveness of sanctions and enforcement to help public authorities and their officials carry out their roles.

Why is this important? Well, rather than looking at disasters that have happened in this country, I want to use two examples from elsewhere that will give us the answer. We won't know how culture change has happened because you can't judge that easily. How on earth can you monitor that? But when mandatory reporting of child sex abuse was introduced into a number of states in Australia, there was alarm. When initially case numbers rocketed. But data also showed that the comprehensive staff training had enabled staff to feel that they could report concerns about possible incidents to the person who they should do in their organisations.

That was a real culture shift. It was a combination of the soft work and also the mandatory reporting, which, if you didn't report, as we're beginning to introduce, not quite the way I'd like in this country. You've got both and you can judge that, but you have to look at some of the softer data as well as the hard data. The other example, my Lords, I have mentioned before. So when a major incident has occurred in this country, things move horribly, slowly.

However, in France, it became clear in the early 80s that some hospitals were giving people, mainly children, with haemophilia, infected blood. Immediately, the French judicial system intervened and three Ministers and two doctors were prosecuted. One Minister and one doctor were found guilty, but the others were not. More importantly, the government at the same time immediately stopped buying blood from the USA, set up their own systems to become self-reliant and ensure purity of the blood. There was no need for any review because the system had worked.

Now, I'm not suggesting we move to the French judicial judicial system, but the point is that there was no attempt to hide anything because the culture in France is. If there is a problem, you need to sort it. And that has happened. It's not to say that without problems entirely, but this example, it took us another 15 years to get our own blood systems set up, and it has taken two full public inquiries and we still aren't there yet, 50 years on.

So, my Lords, our amendment today says how are we going to know that it's worked? I hope that we've set that out. I hope in the short term it will give us the good news that it is the Australia example, and in the longer term we will wonder why on earth it was needed, because our system will resolve the issues before we even need an inquiry.
20:14
20:15
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is the last group, >> My Lords, this is the last group, I think, for debate today, so I won't speak at length. And as the noble Lord Lord Alton has just said, there is a large measure of agreement, I think, across the Committee on the need for some post-legislative scrutiny, and in our meetings with the noble Lord, the Minister, he was able to assure us that the government will review the effectiveness of the legislation. Post-implementation and that is very reassuring.

But what a number of the amendments in this group seek to do is a more formal process of review that will give the public and Parliament an opportunity to see what the government's own assessment is of the success of the act. This is a complex and sometimes technical piece of legislation, and therefore I think there is a good case for a more formal review process after the passage of the bill into law. I am not sure whether we would want.

We ought to bind the government to bring forward draft legislation in the way proposed by the amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Lord when he's here, and I hesitate even more to differ when he's not here, even though he was ably represented by the noble Lord Lord Alton. But I'm not sure. Binding the government to bring forward draft legislation is the way forward, but I do hope we can work together to find a robust mechanism to allow us to return to look at this legislation following a proper review, to give Parliament the opportunity to address any deficiencies.

And, of course, I'll listen carefully to any further indications. The noble Lord, the Minister may have in this regard.
20:17
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, I do entirely share what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson and Lord Alton, said. The principle I think we all agreed on is the need to have appropriate need to have appropriate post-legislative scrutiny at the right time, and I'll come to that very briefly in a moment before I begin. Before I go to that, though, I will briefly explain the technical government amendment in this group. The existing provision in the Bill currently only supplies the special orders dealing with hybrid instruments for draft affirmative instruments.

Government amendment 138 ensures that the de Hybridising provision in clause 2412 will apply to all affirmative instruments laid under the bill. The existing provision in the bill only supplies the special orders dealing with hybrid instruments for draft affirmative instruments. I hope so, it's totally clear to me. Turning to amendment one 105 and the amendments on Post-legislative scrutiny. Generally, this seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a review within one year, post Royal Assent of the act, and publish proposed legislation to address any deficiency.

Amendment 107 has similar intent of a review of an act within. Within one year, an amendment 33 would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the Inquiries Act in relation to the requirements under section one of this act. My Lords, as I've said, the government absolutely shares the same view that when legislation such as this is brought forward, we must assess its effectiveness. All of the measures in this bill will affect a large number of individuals and organisations, and time will be needed for training and implementation.

It is highly unlikely that we will be in any position to properly assess the effectiveness of the act as a whole within a year, as set out in our impact assessment, and I think the noble Lady Baroness Brinton acknowledged the difficulties of that as set out in our impact assessment. The government has committed to conducting a limited review of the impact of the misconduct in public office measures on those public officers office holders subject to them. This will be 12 months after the measures come into force.

We agree. Therefore, it would be wise to review how the other offences operate. But more importantly, if all the measures are operated as we intended and if any changes are needed, we think this is an appropriate time frame for the misconduct in public order offences, which are already common law offences. However, more time is likely needed for brand new offences and measures. The noble Lord noble and learned Lord Keen following his amendment 1258 regarding whether a longer period, including two years, might provide a more appropriate time frame for review.

I can assure the committee sympathetic to that, and I can assure the committee that we will actively consider this, along with other suggestions from noble Lords, and work with your Lordships ahead of Report stage two on this point regarding the proposal by the noble Lord Lord Marks, or by the noble Lady, Lady Brinton, to require an annual independence report, which, as I say, we are exploring all these Post-legislative scrutiny suggestions and we will. We will explore the best way of achieving what I think this amendment seeks, and I will set out proposals in due course.

And of course I make the same offer as I always do to discuss this ahead of Report stage. Lastly, I turn to amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester. This amendment raises an important issue the proper management, preservation and accessibility of records relating to policing and police conduct. The government recognises the Hillsborough Independent Panel's recommendation to place police records under legislative control, and the strength of the concern that important records must be lost. We have taken tangible action in response, the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, referred my noble friend Lord Faulks, I apologise, referred to an exchange of letters, and with his permission I will.

I will circulate that correspondence to the committee because it deals in some detail with a number of the other points he made. And if you forgive me in the interest of time, I won't go through every point in detail. But as I say, we will circulate that letter which does cover that ground. And we. We can debate it further if necessary, but any regime must preserve records of enduring value while ensuring personal data is retained, retained only when necessary and justified.

The government believes the right response is to continue strengthening police records and management. Assess the 23 2023 code and consider arrangements for new national policing bodies. With those comments, I ask my noble friend, the Lord Faulkner, to withdraw his amendment.
20:22
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I am. >> Grateful to my noble friend, the Minister for his response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope he will agree that it would make good sense for for us, and possibly the Archives and Records Association meet with him and his officials, perhaps with. Along with members of your Lordships House who are interested in the subject, to see if there is some way in which we can get the police records more firmly established as public records and protected. Because I'm not satisfied. It's clear that my noble friend Lord wills, or the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, are not satisfied with the existing arrangements, and neither, indeed, I suspect, is the Prime Minister who wrote to Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, in July 2016, who said that future researchers must have a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guaranteed right to access to records, And the police themselves must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the police themselves must be obliged to preserve their records for public accountability purposes. I hope that in some way purposes. I hope that in some way we will be able to arrive at a consensus and a lot of consensus in consensus and a lot of consensus in this debate this evening that we that we will get get to a point where police records are covered where police records are covered properly. But with that and with the with the possibility that we can come back to this matter on refer on report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
20:24
20:24
20:25
Lord Caine Portrait Lord Caine (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. Before I begin, I wish >> My Lords. Before I begin, I wish to put on record our condolences to the family and friends of Conor Bradford, a fine journalist and Bradford, a fine journalist and broadcaster with the BBC for many years, who died last week. Conor had an inimitable style and he will had an inimitable style and he will be much missed. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for providing time to enable us to ask questions on the statement made by her right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State in the other place, on the report of the Robert Hamill inquiry. And I wish to extend our gratitude to the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, who carried out the initial inquiry and who first completed the report in 2011, and to Sir John Evans Evans and Lady Richardson of Calow for updating and finishing it. Following the conclusion of legal proceedings in 2020 for the murder of Robert Hamill, for that is what it was. As the report makes clear, in April 1997 was a vile and vicious sectarian crime.

Mr. Hamill, a young man of 25 and a father of three, was returning home from an evening out in Portadown when he was attacked simply because he was a Roman Catholic. I know I speak for the whole house when I say that our thoughts and sincere condolences are with the grieving family and friends of Mr. Hamill, who have had to wait so long for this report. As the House will be aware, the inquiry was the product of negotiations at Weston Park in 2001, was confirmed in April 2004 by the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who is in his place and held its public hearings in 2009.

I was an adviser at the Northern Ireland Office when, in 2011, we were told that Sir Edwin had completed his report, but that it could not be published due to ongoing legal proceedings. Astonishingly, these took a further 13 years, with a former RUC reservist, Robert Atkinson, finally pleading guilty in 2024 to conspiring to pervert the course of justice by calling the home of a potential suspect in the early hours following the attack. As a result, he was handed a 12 month sentence.

Does the noble Baroness, the Minister, share my deep concern and frustration that this took so long, not least when it concluded with a guilty verdict, a guilty plea? I beg your pardon. And does she share the view of the trial judge that the actions of Mr. Atkinson were, quote, a disgrace to the uniform? My Lords, I have known many fine RUC officers over the years. Indeed count some as personal friends, but the conduct of Mr. Atkinson, both shortly after the attack and over subsequent years, were utterly deplorable.

Regrettably, 29 years after this brutal murder, nobody has been convicted for it, even though there are probably people around still who could, who know the truth of what happened that night, so could the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell the House what is the status of the murder inquiry and where responsibility now rests for any further investigation? My Lords, one of the central allegations over the years, and which in large part led to calls for an inquiry, was the claim that four RUC officers in a Land Rover in the centre of Portadown that evening did nothing to prevent the attack that led to Mr.

Hamill's death and were, as a result, guilty of collusion. Can the Minister confirm that Sir John and Lady Richardson conclude that, in respect of the officers in the Land Rover, quote, they were not aware of the assault until they got out and did not in any way condone or collude with the attackers. That, quote, they attempted to restore order. And crucially, that, quote, we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill's death. The report does go on to set out a number of very serious failings in the subsequent police investigation into the murder, including 14 wrongful acts or omissions on the part of officers.

My Lords, any collusion is always wrong. It can never be justified and must always be condemned as we did in government. But can the Minister confirm that, with the exceptions of the wrongful acts of Mr. Atkinson and one deliberate wrongful act of Detective Chief Superintendent McBurney in delivering a misleading prosecution file in all other areas, they conclude that the acts of omission were down to negligence or lack of diligence, however, represent reprehensible. That might be appalling, as the crime was, and it was indeed heinous.

Does the Minister agree that there was no evidence of any overarching conspiracy within the Royal Ulster Constabulary to collude in the death of Mr. Hamill or thwart its investigation? Finally, my Lords, we genuinely hope that the report, after so long, does provide answers to the questions for which the Hamill Hamill family have waited for 29 long years. But will she agree that lengthy and costly public inquiries of this nature are not necessarily the best way of dealing with legacy issues? The independent commission that we established has now begun to deliver its reports.

The first one of which was a. Presented on the 23rd of September this year and was very well received by the family concerned. Does she agree that this is the right way forward to provide victims and survivors of the Troubles with as much information as possible as to what happened to their loved ones?
20:30
Baroness Suttie Portrait Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, I too thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for taking Lady, the Minister, for taking questions on the Robert Hamill Report inquiry that was published a Report inquiry that was published a month ago. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the family of Robert Hamill, who have waited so long, nearly 30 years and with such dignity for the publication of this report. To lose a family member, a young 25 year old father of three children in such an appalling and brutal sectarian attack is something that no family should ever have to bear.

I sincerely hope that with the publication of this report, the family feel that they now have some of the answers to the many questions about what happened on that night. Can the Minister say how the family of Robert Hamill have been supported, and whether they continue to be supported following the publication of this report? Although it is understandable that the report could not be published when it was completed in 2011 because of ongoing prosecutions, it remains extremely hard to understand why the prosecution of three individuals took until June 2024, 27 years after this brutal murder.

This additional delay until the prosecution of the RUC officer, Robert Atkinson, for his role in perverting the course of justice in 2024, must have caused the family a great deal of additional stress. It is important to emphasise that the vast majority of our UC officers serve their country well, and in the most challenging of circumstances. Without their bravery and commitment, many more people, my Lords, would have died. But it is equally right that where crimes are committed, where there are failures of police investigations or incidents are covered up that result in justice being denied, that those are acknowledged.

Those responsible are prosecuted and lessons are learned. Can the Minister say how the government intend to act on the lessons learned from the report in terms of cost, timescales and implementation of the recommendations from this inquiry? I fully appreciate that these will be primarily a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. The Justice Minister and the PSNI. But can she say whether she expects lessons learned to feed into the wider government approach to dealing with the past? Since this report was published, my Lords.

We have witnessed an extremely unfortunate escalation of tensions which have a deep cost both politically and financially, to the people of Northern Ireland, something which I believe is not wanted by ordinary people of Northern Ireland who do not want to see a return to the level of tensions we saw prior to 1998 and the events laid out in this report. There is a statement. There was a statement this evening from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on these matters in the House of Commons, and we will no doubt return to those issues later this week.

But I think that this report should serve as a reminder of a past to which surely none of us should ever wish to return.
20:34
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Firstly, can I place on record my personal thanks to both the noble Lord Lord Caine and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for the tone of their contributions. When we discuss anything related to the Troubles, there is an onus on all of us to remember each anniversary, each unnecessary death, each moment of heartbreak. And today, as with every calendar day, is another heartbreaking anniversary. An event which touched several members of your Lordships' House the anniversary of the Brighton bomb.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and survivors of that day, and the 1978 bombing of the Belfast to Dublin train and the 1992 bombing of the Sussex pub. My Lords, there is never a day where there isn't an anniversary. Today we are here to discuss yet another tragedy. My Lords, with the leave of the House, I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary grace and dignity Robert Hamel's family have shown over the 29 years since he was murdered. Grieving a loved one is hard enough, but grieving for someone violently killed without clear answers for decades causes immense pain.

I send them my heartfelt sympathy, and I'm sure that of your Lordships House. My Lords, I think as with every incident from the Troubles, we should reiterate the facts and it is all too often the case when we consider the history of the Troubles. The facts are bleak. In the early morning of the 27th of April 1997, a 25 year old Catholic man, Robert Hamill, was violently attacked by a group of Protestants in Portadown, near a parked RUC Landrover. He suffered severe head injuries and died in hospital 11 days later.

The inquiry confirms Robert was killed solely because he was Catholic. The path to this report has been plagued by delay, as both members of your Lordships' House have raised. Established in 2004 under Sir Edwin Jowitt. Publication was deferred pending criminal proceedings, which concluded in 2024 with the conviction of former RUC officer Robert Atkinson for perverting the course of justice. And to answer the noble Lord Lord Caine, yes, I do share the views of the judge. Sir John Evans was subsequently appointed chair to finalise the report as the noble Lord Lord Caine rightly raised, and I acknowledge the 15 year delay since the inquiry's initial completion was far too long.

But I am so pleased for the family it has finally been published regarding our UC. Conduct. The inquiry majority found that officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of acts or omissions facilitating Robert's death, nor did they condone or collude with attackers. However, the inquiry identified a disturbing catalogue of wrongful admissions and failings during the initial investigation. These omissions included failure to carry out an initial debriefing both at the scene and immediately upon return to the police station, with multiple officers finishing their shifts or going on to other duties without recording what had happened.

This was. This had a serious and significant impact on the murder investigation, and these omissions were negligent failure to carry out a full debriefing of all officers who had been at the scene. Once it became clear that Robert Hamill's injuries were life threatening, this omission was negligent, a wrongful omission by two officers to supply relevant information in relation to an individual they had seen at the scene. This inhibited and obstructed the investigation and was, in the case of one officer, negligent and, in the case of the other, deliberate.

Crucially, the inquiry found former officer Robert Atkinson ticked off ticked off a suspect leading to the destruction of evidence, and later conspired to cover up his actions conduct resulting in his 2024 criminal conviction. It is deeply disturbing that an individual who so egregiously failed his duty and acted criminally carried an RUC badge for years. Noble Lords will be aware that the communities of Portadown have again been at the centre of discussions in recent weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was on his feet in the other place today, making a statement about these events, which I am sure we will repeat in the coming days.

Today, all I wish to say is that parading has a deep and and cultural significance to many in Northern Ireland, and thankfully, the vast majority of parades pass off peacefully. In some cases, and none more so than the Drumcree parade, there are deep anxieties and traumas stemming from previous violence that cannot be expunged from memory. I will not be setting out the technical details of decision making due to the ongoing court proceedings, but nobody should have the opportunity to discuss recent events in more detail in the coming days.

The report we are discussing today is a stark reminder of the long shadow of the Troubles and the many families who still await answers. The peace delivered by the Belfast Good Friday Agreement must never be taken for granted. We must remain committed to reconciliation and overcoming sectarian division. On the specifics that were asked by the noble Lords, noble Lord Lord Caine rightly asked about how we deliver not all through the prism of public inquiries, answers for the families that are still waiting.

And let's be clear, there are still far, far too many families, and both victims and survivors who need information. And it is a very, very important tool. Noble Lords will be aware that we will be discussing probably over many, many hours in your Lordships House, the strengthening of Iswara to become the Legacy Commission. But I, for one, was very pleased to see the report about Rory O'Kelly from the Commission. We now have something that is tangible that we can discuss in terms of next steps.

I also want to put on record, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sati, but about the family, the Secretary of State spoke to Robert's sister just before publication. Diane, I think they have acted with a huge level of of grace and dignity in what I can only imagine is heartbreaking times. Every time, both on every anniversary. But even in recent days. And the news would have been hard for them. We will continue what we can do to support them, and in terms of any future murder inquiry or ongoing murder inquiry, that is still remains a matter for PSNI unless it is referred into the Legacy Commission at any point.

I also want to reiterate the words of both noble Lords about the bravery of the RUC. The reality is, and I had the privilege of attending the the National Police Memorial commemoration in Belfast only two weeks ago, where everyone was reminded quite how dangerous it was to be a police officer in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. There was nowhere in the world where it was more dangerous than in Northern Ireland. That includes Columbia, which when we. We all spend a great deal of time talking about matters pertaining to conflict far away, but actually it was in Northern Ireland where it was incredibly unsafe to be a police officer.

I am so grateful both to those that put on a uniform, men and those that put on a uniform now for everything they do to keep everyone safe, both here and there. My Lords, in conclusion, I want to extend my personal gratitude to the chairs and and panel of the inquiry. Copies of the report are laid in the libraries of both houses and published online. As. The murder file remains open and no one has been convicted of Robert Hamel's murder. Our heartfelt respect remain with his family.
20:42
Lord Weir of Ballyholme Portrait Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
My Lords, can I first of all associate myself with the remarks of Lord Caine and passing on condolences to the family of Conor Bradford? And also, I associate myself with the remarks of all who have spoken in this debate or sorry, this statement so far. On the absolute abhorrence and condemnation of the brutal and evil murder of Robert Hamill, it is clear on this matter, and indeed in other matters, that the law should always be obeyed, that the rule of law should be paramount and that no one should be above the law.

And what we have seen, unfortunately, though, from this report has been in many ways, it has not told us a great deal that we did not know already. The one former police officer who disgraced the badge by being involved in terrible criminal acts, has been convicted, has been in court, been convicted and sentenced for their crimes. The report has concluded that that there was no collusion between the RUC and and those responsible for the murder.

And I think those are all facts that we knew already. But given the fact that the report has taken 29 years since the murder of Robert Hamill, it has taken more than 20 years, albeit through very unusual circumstances since the since the inquiry was started, all of. During all of which the Hamill family have had to wait the final report and given the fact to the public purse to produce something which doesn't really take us very much further forward in terms of new information, has cost £33 million.

Does the government acknowledge that in hindsight that perhaps we were doing better, finding a more focussed and effective route to deal with this matter?
20:44
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for his >> I thank the noble Lord for his question, and while I appreciate and genuinely do appreciate the concerns raised, the noble Lord concerns raised, the noble Lord will be aware that the Western Park Agreement provided a series of public inquiries, of which the inquiry into Robert Hamill's death is one. And while I appreciate his murder, well, I appreciate the noble Lords concern, I think. And as I have said, it's still an open murder investigation.

I I'd like to reiterate the fact about the terms of reference of the inquiry were to establish the facts around collusion, which is where which is exactly what they did. It was not to try and identify who had been murdered. And this brings me to a point that was raised by the noble Lord Lord Caine. There is a responsibility that we have both as UK parliamentarians, but I think as people who care deeply and passionately about Northern Ireland to give the families the answers they need, not the ones that we think they need.

And in this case, these are the answers that the family wanted. And, well, I'm sure they want to know much more. And this is what this is what they have been agreed with them at the time. And this is what this is where we are. But it does bring us to why we are doing the Legacy Commission in the round. And it's because even within families, there are people who want different sets of information so that they can get closure, or they can get the closest thing to closure for them.

And I think that's reflected both here. And I appreciate the noble Lords frustration, but in this instance, it's for the family. It's not for us.
20:45
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I remind the House that I was 22 years younger when I that I was 22 years younger when I commissioned this report? And that's a long time ago, but it was that's a long time ago, but it was part of four inquiries that took place at the time as a result of Western Park. Nelson, Wright, Finucane and Robert Hamill. And the reason they all came together was to try to bring all the community together in understanding what had happened in the past.

But it has been an absolutely inordinate length of time, and I really do feel very sorry for the family and all that the people involved in this, and I do hope it brings them closure. At the same time, I think that there is a lesson to be learned from this, and I hope it's going to be a lesson that people in that part of Northern Ireland, where there's currently community tensions, will heed, because the purpose of this report, of this inquiry was to try and ease tension, trying to deal with sectarianism.

And I think it's done that. Inquiries are not always the answer, but in this case it will bring that closure. And I think it will also remind people what can happen when sectarianism is at its worst can bring murder, mayhem and misery. And so it's a reminder, and I hope everybody in Northern Ireland involved at the moment in the current issues, they would would remember what has happened to Robert Hamill and to all those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved in sectarian tension. I want to very much thank my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to very much thank my noble friend, both for the work that he did when he was Secretary of State and for his always very, very wise words. It's because of him that the family of Robert Hamill have got the answers that Hamill have got the answers that they need in this instance, and that there are lessons to be learned or. And I did realise I had learned or. And I did realise I had not answered that. But there are lessons to be learned, both for the PSNI as they are looking at the recommendations that are made from them, but also for all of us, and about if there is anything that we need to learn in terms of the future Legacy Commission, we will discuss this later in in the week, I think.

But the noble Lords. Absolutely right. I spent a significant amount of recess in Northern Ireland with the people from with many people from Portadown. And I think that there is. I have been reminded of quite how fragile peace really is. Noble Lords who have had this. Some of the similar experiences that I have had well be reminded of the unfinished room, as I call it at Hillsborough. The unfinished artwork in one of. In the Lady Jane suite, I think.

But, Lady Grey, thank you. It's been a very, very long recess for me, but in the Lady Grey suite, where each piece of artwork of all of the main figures that help deliver the Belfast Good Friday Agreement and the. And the agreements that led up to that point are featured. But not a single piece of the artwork is completed because there was a decision made. That piece is not yet finished. It will not yet be finished. I think in recent days, that's been something I've been holding on to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank. The noble Lady, the Minister, for her very sensitive outlining of for her very sensitive outlining of this report? The killing of Robert Hamill was an appalling sectarian Hamill was an appalling sectarian killing. A young Catholic boy simply killed because he was a Catholic, just like the many young Catholic, just like the many young Protestant boys who were killed just because they were Protestants. And I hope the family, as we all do And I hope the family, as we all do now, have.

Take some comfort from this report, but the noble Lady will know that sadly, Republicans for a long time have gone on about collusion. Everything was collusion. The RUC were colluding. Every time there was anything happened. Will
20:50
20:51
20:52
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
Too, remember the murder of Robert Hamill set against the then Robert Hamill set against the then Drumcree dispute in April 1997. I do remember the inquiries that were do remember the inquiries that were set up as a result of the talks at Weston Park in 2001, and the one in Weston Park in 2001, and the one in respect of Robert Hamill. I also knew Rosemary Nelson because she was a contemporary of mine, a Queen's University Belfast. But I think we must remember that again.

We're in the midst of another unnecessary dispute at Drumcree, with all its unfortunate displays of community tension which simply serve no one and undermine our economy and undermine our fragile peace process. Because there's been one element that has never been properly addressed, and that is the healing process, and we have to get involved in that. That is everybody right across the community. And these counter, shall we say, innuendos and accusations by one against the other have to stop because it's the people of Northern Ireland who lose out as a result of that.

And I would ask my noble friend the Minister, if she would agree with that assessment. And in relation to the Robert Hamill inquiry and the report, can she further assure me and your Lordships House, that the disclosure must be properly addressed in the New Legacy body, which is the government is currently legislating for, and that it is futile to reopen wounds as deep as the current Drumcree dispute have enabled at this current moment in time, and that we should now move on to that healing reconciliation process to ensure a Ireland.
20:54
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Labour)
-
-
A my noble friend, is absolutely right. One of the challenges in the extraordinary document that I hold so dear in terms of the Belfast Good Friday agreements, is that the word victim is is not really mentioned because that was put in the too difficult box. It's mentioned once. I think there is a huge amount still to be done in terms of healing and bringing communities together, which is why we will be spending so many hours discussing the legacy Bill, making sure that in the or the Troubles bill, making sure that at this final world of the dice, we can actually deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and make sure the people who need answers can get them in order to help them heal, and to help the next generations be able to move on.

I very much one of my responsibilities is to the commemorations of the Good Friday Agreement 30, and I very much want them to be beyond the Good Friday Agreement. Beyond what does Northern Ireland look like now, and what where do we aspire to take it? In terms of the specific question with regards to disclosure, the Troubles Bill would establish a fairer disclosure regime, including the introduction of a balancing exercise in schedule five that will require the Secretary of State to consider whether the public interest requires the disclosure of sensitive information.

The Hillsborough Law Bill is a landmark piece of UK legislation, which we have been discussing your Lordships' House today. It will require public authorities and officials to assist inquiries and investigations to fulfil their their objectives. This commitment to the truth and information recovery is mirrored in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, where the Reform Legacy Commission will ensure a truly victim centred approach. It is for this reason that any new inquests commenced under the Troubles Bill will be automatically in scope of duty of candour.

The processes of the Legacy Commission will be subject to a distinct disclosure regime. The government is therefore considering the applicability and the duty of candour in this context.
20:56
20:57
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page