Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressure of delivery and the need for long-term funding for our support services. In total, the Ministry of Justice will be investing over £550 million in victim support services over the next three years—the biggest ever investment in victim support services.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment. Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid does a brilliant job advocating for victims of domestic abuse, but it has seen a worrying increase in the level of psychological abuse, alongside historical challenges with violence. Can the Minister confirm that Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid, along with other organisations doing such good work, will get the support that she has just outlined to enable them to look after the victims for whom they advocate so brilliantly?
Alex Davies-Jones
I commend my hon. Friend as a fantastic constituency MP and Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid for all the brilliant work it does in supporting victims of abuse and violence. He is right to highlight that victims are now coming forward with much more complex needs—not just physical violence, but coercive and controlling behaviour—and it is right that that is properly treated and recognised. That is why we are ensuring that victims have the right to timely support. That is a key part of the Government’s mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. We have committed to ringfencing the funding that the MOJ provides to police and crime commissioners, and we are working with them to ensure that, post their abolition, following their term coming to an end, we can provide certainty to victim support services, so that they know they will be there whenever a victim or survivor needs them.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Supporting victims of heinous crimes such as child abuse is paramount. Aside from support services, clear communication and transparency is key, yet the parents of the 21 babies abused by Roksana Lecka at the Riverside nursery in Twickenham Green were given less than a week’s notice that she would be deported to Poland this Thursday. They have been given no information about whether Lecka will continue to serve the rest of her eight-year sentence or whether she will walk free after just four months in a UK prison. They fear that if left unsupervised, she will harm many more children. Can the Minister tell the House what the release terms are for Lecka? Those parents deserve answers.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important case. I think the thoughts and sympathies of the whole House will be with all the victims of these most heinous crimes. Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, and it is right that we have the correct support services available for child victims. The Sentencing Minister is meeting colleagues in the Home Office today to discuss this case, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full update as requested on the specifics.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?
Alex Davies-Jones
As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a statement, he must have a short memory, because we were brought to this House to discuss this matter. The Hillsborough law will be a landmark moment for this Government. It will be a Bill for the victims, written by the victims who have been through those heinous experiences. We will ensure that national security is upheld, and we will bring this Bill forward when it has the full backing by everyone and when it is ready.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
As I have stated, the Ministry of Justice is investing over £550 million in victim support services, the biggest investment in that service to date. In December, we published our violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy sets out how we will achieve our mission to halve these terrible crimes, including domestic abuse, by rolling out domestic abuse protection orders—which are lifesaving—and looking at how we can maximise specialist domestic abuse courts.
Dr Sullivan
A number of constituents have shared with me the terror of waiting in line to get to court, and then waiting in the waiting room before court, with their accused abuser or perpetrator. On some occasions, special arrangements have been put in place, but this has been very hit and miss. Will the Minister look at how the arrangements for protecting survivors and supporting them to get to court while not seeing their abuser can be made standard, to get them from the street to the courtroom safely?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Ensuring that witnesses and victims can give their best evidence in court is vital if we are to achieve prosecution of these awful crimes. We are introducing legislation to improve access to special measures for witnesses and victims, including permitting victims to be accompanied while giving evidence, separate entrances and exits, and the provision of pre-recorded cross-examination. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend with more information as the legislation progresses.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I recently brought together domestic abuse charities in Bath, such as Developing Health and Independence, Voices, and the Nelson Trust, which provide services including how to navigate the complicated justice system. They all agree it is critical that they all work together and that there are joined-up local services, but what can be done nationally to bring organisations and charities together, rather than pitting them against each other in an environment of often limited resources?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is totally right to raise that point. We talk a lot about multi-agency working, but it is difficult to put into practice. As she will be aware, just before Christmas we published the “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy on how we can tackle violence against women and girls, with multi-agency working on a national level and practices and applications at the heart of that strategy. I will meet our victims’ sector advisory board later this afternoon, and I will make sure to raise this point with them as well, so that we bring them in. They are the people on the ground delivering this work, so we should learn from them directly.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the action that the Government are taking to reduce the court backlogs, especially for cases involving violence against women and girls. What consultation has taken place with victims organisations and charities regarding the plans to restrict jury trials? We must ensure that these victims are kept at the heart of any reforms to the courts system, so that they can be satisfied that timely justice will be delivered.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is right that victims are put back at the heart of our criminal justice system. For far too long, their views and their voices were ignored, but not by this Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) and I have met many victims of horrific crimes to hear about how court delays have impacted on them. The Victims’ Commissioner is supportive of our reforms as outlined in Sir Brian Leveson’s report, and we look forward to part 2 being published imminently so that we can discuss how better we can support victims of these crimes going forward, ensuring that they get their day in court and see justice being done.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire police, led by the exceptional Chief Constable Mark Roberts, on its well-executed Operation Crossbow, which I witnessed yesterday? More than 40 perpetrators of domestic violence wanted by the police and the courts were arrested and detained by a police force committed to the safety of women. Does he agree that such operations in Cheshire will be put at risk by the Government’s desire to merge 43 forces into 12, which will increase the risk to victims of domestic violence?
Alex Davies-Jones
I commend the work of brilliant police forces up and down the country doing work to tackle domestic abuse. The hon. Member will know that it was a Labour party manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls, and that is exactly what she is talking about with what is happening in practice in Cheshire. This Labour Government are delivering for Cheshire and her constituency. She will know that the Home Office is consulting on proposals to ensure that we maximise police efficiency and boots on the ground, ensuring that everyone is kept safe and that we have safer streets. The Home Office will update on those plans shortly.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue on the Floor of the House. All my thoughts are with the victims and survivors of this horrific situation in Scotland at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The Bill’s duty of candour will create a powerful new obligation on all public bodies and officials to help investigations and inquiries find the truth that is needed, placing them under a legal obligation to provide information and evidence with candour. The duty will apply UK-wide, including in Scotland.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
For too long, victims in Altrincham and Sale West and across the country have been treated as secondary thoughts in the criminal justice system—left in limbo, not knowing their rights and feeling voiceless when decisions are made on bail and sentencing. What reassurances can the Minister give that victims will be at the heart of the justice system following the Government’s reforms?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that vital question about putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is exactly what this Government are doing by providing free court transcripts for criminal cases, introducing new restriction zones in the Sentencing Act 2026, and consulting on a brand-new victims code to enshrine victims’ rights and ensure they have the ability to request information on parole and offender management. I would be happy to write to him with more information on how this Government are delivering for victims.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the fact that Llanelli, along with the rest of Wales, will be in the pilot expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme. However, as the Minister will know, it is often very difficult for children who have suffered neglect and abuse, or adults who suffered it as children, to report such incidents. Will the Minister agree to meet me to look again at extending the six-month time limit for summary offences, which leaves survivors with no redress and allows abuse and neglect to go unpunished?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome this question from my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme throughout Wales so that Welsh victims have the right to review their cases. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more we can do for Welsh victims across the criminal justice system.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Given that the MOJ is responsible for granting exhumation licences, does the Secretary of State agree that significant historical pauper burial sites, such Horton cemetery in my constituency, require stronger safeguards, and will he meet me to discuss how licensing decisions can better protect them?
Alex Davies-Jones
I would be honoured to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the case she mentions.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Scottish Parliament is this week considering a Bill by the fantastic Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon that would enable the prosecution of climate criminals who cause widespread, long-term or irreversible damage to our environment. What consideration have Ministers given to consulting on making ecocide a criminal offence across the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have had positive conversations with colleagues across Government, including in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about how we can progress on that. I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what more work we can do.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the sale of Government land around HMP Wealstun. Were neighbouring residents given advance notice of the auction details so that they could express an interest?
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
In their manifesto at the last election, the Government promised to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Will the Minister update the House on how many have been set up to date?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the brilliant Labour party manifesto, which we are delivering in government. He is right to highlight the need for specialist rape courts. We are working with the Courts Minister on that and looking to see how we can push this forward to ensure that rape victims who have been languishing, waiting for justice, are not waiting too long. That is why we are implementing Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations to ensure that there is swifter justice for victims.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The new judicial finding of domestic abuse in the Sentencing Act 2026 will help us better identify domestic abusers in the criminal justice system. Will the Minister explain when that element of the Act will commence? What additional training will be given to judges and magistrates to make sure that they can implement it effectively?
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the next steps for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough law.
As Members will be aware, the Bill was due to return to the Chamber today for its remaining Commons stages. From the very beginning we have been clear: it is a Bill for families, and it must have their voices and views at its heart. We remain absolutely committed to making meaningful changes for the families of Hillsborough, the Manchester terror attack, the Grenfell Tower fire, the sub-postmasters and, sadly, so many more.
The Bill is about something very simple: what people should be able to expect from the state when the worst, sadly, happens: candour, transparency, frankness and a system that stands with families, not against them—not a battle against the full might of the state. That is why the Bill is so important and is so long overdue, and it is why we will always be open to listening.
On Second Reading, the Prime Minister made a commitment that the Bill would not be watered down, and that any changes made to it will only strengthen it. We have always been clear that the Hillsborough law will apply to all public authorities, including the intelligence services. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the duty of candour would need to apply differently to the intelligence services, to get the right balance between transparency and national security. Last week, the Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill, including to extend the duty of candour directly to individuals working for the intelligence agencies, as well as to the authorities themselves. This was a direct response to concerns raised by MPs and campaigners.
There have been reports in the press that the Government wanted to water down aspects of the Bill. I want to take those claims head on, because, with respect, that was never, ever our intention. It is not what the amendments we proposed would have done. The amendments aimed to strengthen the Bill by extending the duty to individual employees of the intelligence services, as well as to the services as organisations. However, it is clear from our conversations with the families directly and with the stakeholders that there are concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed will work in practice.
There will be questions about why we could not find a solution and why we need to delay when families have been clear on their views. I want to be clear that this is an incredibly complex area of policy. Across Government, we must think about all the possible scenarios and unintended consequences for national security, and then work together with Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the campaigners and, most of all, the families to find a way through.
It is right to acknowledge that this is not a simple issue to resolve. We are absolutely committed to the principles of the Bill: ensuring clear standards for all public servants and accountability for anyone who seeks to lie or cover up the truth. At the same time, our primary duty as the Government is to keep this country safe and secure. We must be able to assure our citizens and our allies that national security information will always be protected.
The Government remain resolutely committed to finding a way forward on this issue, which is why we have taken the decision to delay the remaining Commons stages of the Bill so that we can find a solution and bring it forward in this House. This pause is not a step back from our principles; it is a commitment to getting this right. I know that families have waited too long already. This decision is not one we took lightly, but we believe it is better to take the time needed to resolve the complex issues, rather than rush the Bill through.
I want to place on the record my deepest thanks to the families and stakeholders for all their continued work with us. It has been the biggest privilege for me, personally, to have had the opportunity to get to know them and to work alongside them over the last year—in particular Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Sue Roberts, Steve Kelly, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, who I now personally count as my friends, and I hope they feel the same.
The Bill is about restoring trust between the public and the state. That trust cannot be demanded: it must be earned. It must be earned by showing the families that this legislation is not about appearances, not about headlines, not about being seen to act; it is about making real and lasting change. By listening to the families, and by taking time to get this right, that is exactly what we are doing. Because when things go wrong, the truth must come out. Accountability must follow and families must never, ever again be left to fight or walk alone. That is what the Bill will achieve, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
What an absolute shambles. The Government have had long enough to work this out: the campaign for a Hillsborough law started 10 years ago, in 2016; Labour MPs started campaigning for it a year later, in 2017; in 2022, the Prime Minister adopted it as a formal Labour policy; in 2024, he put it in his manifesto, promising it would be one of his first acts as Prime Minister. Yet here we are today, after another set of rushed amendments, with yet another delay and another promise to get it right, but absolutely no idea what the Government are going to do or even when they are going to do it.
This problem was not some bolt out of the blue or unforeseeable surprise. How the Bill applies to the intelligence agencies is an obvious question that has been known for years, but it is a question that the Prime Minister—the man they used to call Mr Forensic—never thought to answer. Instead, he did what he always does: he made the campaigners one promise and made the intelligence agencies another. That is why, when the Bill’s Report stage was due last week, the Government pulled it. It is why, when it was due again today, they pulled it again, late last night. It is why, just now, the Minister was unable to say when the Government will bring forward their next attempt to get this right.
Right now, in the bowels of Whitehall, the Government are trying to draft their way through the problem—trying to find a form of words that will satisfy both the campaigners and the spooks. But I have news for the Minister: they cannot draft their way out of this problem. There is a choice to be made. If the Prime Minister believes it is dangerous to apply this law to the intelligence agencies in full, just as it is applied to other public bodies, then he simply should not do that. He needs to make a decision.
I have five questions for the Minister. I am not asking for classified information, so she need not use that defence. These are reasonable questions that she can answer. First, by what specific date will the Government return to Parliament with a new amendment to address this question? Secondly, do the Government still believe it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence agencies to determine what information is provided to an investigation?
Thirdly, if the Government believe that somebody else should decide, who do they think that should be? Fourthly, if the Government believe that the decision rightly lies with the intelligence agencies, and that this is necessary for national security, are Ministers prepared to assert that difficult truth to the campaigners? Fifthly, what representations have the Government received from the Governments of other Five Eyes countries that do not have laws like this?
There are five questions; five clear answers are needed. After all this time, we deserve answers for the families who have suffered terrible tragedies, for the brave men and women who work every day to keep us safe, and for the country as a whole.
This completely avoidable situation is the fault of a pointless Prime Minister who has no idea what he wants to do and, even if he did, no idea how to do it. He made a promise but had no idea how to keep it. He made that promise not once, but five times in this House alone. As with tax and spend, jury trials, ID cards and more, the contradictions are piling up. The Government talk about a duty of candour, but if the Minister was to show some candour now, she would admit that this has been, from start to finish, an absolute mess.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not know how the Opposition dare. It is utterly shameful. I know that the shadow Secretary of State knows how complex this all is and how much it means to everyone involved. His party did nothing to solve this issue—the Conservatives did nothing for the families or to bring forward a duty of candour. He asks me to be candid, so I will be candid. This is about righting an injustice and preventing people wronged by injustice from going through absolute hell. To try to make political hay from this matter is disgraceful, and he should be called out for it.
The hon. Gentleman has been in the job for only a few days, and I was going to sincerely welcome him to his position and hope that we could work collegiately on this legislation for the families and the victims of these horrendous state cover-ups. However, I advise him that following in the footsteps of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), by attention seeking at all costs does not end well.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, we will continue to work with the families, to listen and to work with the intelligence services and other partners to ensure that the Bill is brought back to the House when it is fit and proper.
Ian Byrne
I’ll move on.
I thank the Minister for the statement and for the pause. A lot of people were extremely concerned about what was happening over the weekend, myself included, so I think the pause is the right thing to do. This is not just a law or a piece of legislation; this is a legacy. This is about the 97 men, women and children who died at Hillsborough, but also those who have been wronged at the hands of the state. This is hugely important, and it is not party political. It is for the whole House to make sure it is done right.
I would like to ask the Minister why amendment 23, which I tabled and which has the full support of everybody connected to Hillsborough, has not been adopted by the Government. Why is it deemed not to be right and proper to be adopted by the Government? It would solve all our issues. Any clarification on that would be great.
Could the Minister also give us a timeline? As she rightly stated, we have waited a long, long time for this, and there is a real concern now that the Bill could be kicked into the long grass. I know the Minister does not want that; she knows I do not want that. All the families and campaigners do not want that either. I just ask for a little clarity on those two questions.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent campaigning on this matter throughout his entire life as a parliamentarian, and for his commitment to ensuring that the voices of the families are always heard inside and outside this place. I make the commitment to him that the Government are listening to the campaigners and committed to doing all we can to work on a way forward. We will work with him, with other parliamentarians and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to find that way forward on this complex and difficult issue. I am committed to having a meeting with him to discuss that further.
On a timeline, we know that families have waited too long. The Bill is not just overdue; it is far too overdue, and it is needed more than ever. However, it has to be right, and we have to get the balance right. We are not kicking the Bill into the long grass; we are committed to doing this as soon as possible, but we have to get it right. I am not setting an arbitrary deadline here—the families have asked me not to, because they want us to get it right. We are committed to doing that and to getting this policy correct. As soon as we have more information, I will bring that forward to the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned his specific amendment. Again, I am happy to speak with him on that and discuss it going forward. Again, I make the commitment that we will work together to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Liberal Democrat Members recognise that the Minister has worked to move the Bill forwards, and has given a lot of care and attention to trying to get it into this place, but the situation is frustrating for those on both sides of the House. This landmark legislation will transform the relationship between public bodies and victims of horrendous tragedies. It was this Government and this Prime Minister who committed to its implementation in full in the Labour manifesto, yet we find ourselves again in limbo.
The carve-out for security services is completely unacceptable and has ground this process to a halt. It is vital that the legislation includes clear, binding provisions to ensure that the security services are subject to the duty of candour. Despite much of the rhetoric around this, there are clear ways to include the security services in this duty while still protecting sensitive national security information. We already do it, as the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) alluded to in speaking to his amendment 23, which I am pleased to have supported.
Provisions already exist to allow evidence that is too sensitive for public disclosure to be heard in closed proceedings before a judge in inquiries, so there is no issue there. Heads of service must be held to account if they refuse to provide relevant information to inquiries and investigations, but it is not for them to decide what is relevant to an inquiry or investigation; that is up to the independent chair of that inquiry. Campaigners raised this issue as early as last September, and Ministers were made fully aware that this was a red line for victims and their families.
I trust that the Minister has had the families at the forefront of her mind in everything that she has done, so I ask her: when the Government present their Bill to the House of Commons, will the duty of candour apply to all in the intelligence services? Will she commit to ensuring that Report and Third Reading of the Bill will take place as soon as possible, so that there is a chance that the legislation will pass prior to the end of this parliamentary Session and the next King’s Speech, as promised, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that it will be in this place that we put the full Hillsborough law forward, not the other place, so that elected representatives can fully scrutinise the finished legislation?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, for their tone, and for her candour; it is appreciated by the Government. I recognise and share her frustration, and that of the House, about how this process has been conducted. This is no ordinary Bill; it is something more than that, and it deserves proper scrutiny in this place, which we will ensure it receives. The Bill will come back to the House of Commons for adequate scrutiny before it goes to the Lords—we have made that commitment today.
There has never been a carve-out for the intelligence services. The duty of candour and assistance has always applied to them. The amendments that the Government tabled apply directly to individual employees of the intelligence services. The difference has always been on the procedures in place for how we handle secure information, but we are committed to finding a way forward for the benefit of everyone, and to doing so as soon as possible. I cannot give a definitive timeline, but we will do it at pace, with the families and the intelligence services. We have to get this right. The Bill will come to this House first, and I am committed to ensuring that it applies to all public servants.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery; to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby KC, who have done phenomenal work for the past 37 years; and of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to the Minister for the work that she has done on this.
While I am pleased that the Government have paused proceedings on the Hillsborough law, I am increasingly concerned about the direction of travel. In March last year, the families of the 97 and Merseyside MPs made it clear that we would not accept anything less than the Hillsborough law. We all understand the importance of national security, but this Bill is not incompatible with national security. As has been said, provisions already exist, and quite frankly, nobody is above the law. A carve-out for the security and intelligence services would only allow the behaviour exposed by the Manchester Arena inquiry to happen again, whereby MI5 were able to withhold information and avoid accountability.
The Minister has been very patient in her responses, but I urge her to continue to work with the families, and with Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby. Please, Minister, bring the Hillsborough law back to this House, so that we can all pass it, because as a Liverpool MP, it would devastate me to vote against the Hillsborough law.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions, and I make that commitment to her. The Prime Minister was clear on Second Reading that the Bill as introduced was agreed with Hillsborough Law Now and the families, and would not be watered down. We will do all that we can to strengthen the Bill. We will continue to work with the families. I, too, pay tribute to Elkan Abrahamson and Pete Weatherby, whom the Government met this morning to discuss next steps. We met the families again today to discuss ongoing collaboration, which will continue. The families will be at the forefront of this, because this is their Bill. This is a legacy, and we want to ensure that we do right by them and bring forward the Hillsborough law.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and ask her for two points of clarification. Does she believe that it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence services to determine what information is provided to an investigation, or should that be determined by someone else, and does she accept that in the early stages of the Bill, the Government were clear that it would not be possible to make the Bill applicable to individual agents? How can the House have confidence that we can now do that without creating unacceptable risks to national security?
Alex Davies-Jones
The primary objective of this Government, and I hope of every Government, is to protect national security and to keep our citizens safe. That is, and will continue to be, of utmost importance to this Government and to this Prime Minister. We will continue to work with the intelligence services. We have had a very collaborative working relationship with them during the development of this Bill. That relationship will continue. We would never do anything that would jeopardise or undermine national security; we have been very clear about that. The families have also been very clear that that is not their intention, and they totally understand this. We think there is a way forward. The Government introduced amendments to ensure that the Bill applied to individual agents, and we did that by working with the heads of the intelligence services directly and with the security services. We will continue to work collaboratively with them and with the families on finding a way forward.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The response of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), while families are sitting with us in the Public Gallery, was one that he should be ashamed of. As the Minister knows, for me, this has always been about families first. It is crystal clear that the Government cannot progress the Bill without the full confidence and support of the families who have fought for decades for justice, and it is right that the Government listen to the families and pause today. The Prime Minister made a direct promise to those families that the Hillsborough law would be delivered in full. Any amendment that fails to satisfy the families on the duty of candour of individuals in the security services is a red line for me and for so many other colleagues in this place. Will the Minister promise me that she will work like the clappers with the families to introduce an amendment that has their full support, and that she will deliver justice for all victims of state cover-ups, so that we can finally say, “Never again”?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and commend her on her tenacious campaigning on this issue. She has been a true champion for the Hillsborough families, and for all the families impacted by state failure and state cover-ups. She is a true friend to everyone who needs their voice to be heard in this place. I can make a commitment to her that we will continue to work with the families, the intelligence services and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward. I am committed to working with her and other parliamentarians on this issue. This has always been a collaborative process. I am always keen to work cross-party, despite what the official Opposition have to say, because this is above party politics. It always has been. It is about ensuring that we find a way forward that can benefit the families and be a true legacy, while ensuring that we protect national security.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
In my past life, I spent a good deal of time working on matters affecting victims of child sex abuse and trafficking, so I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s desire to ensure that the Bill, in its final form, is workable, but it seems there is already a serious risk of ambiguity around the accountability at the heart of the Bill. How does the Minister propose to ensure that there is effective oversight of the decision-making process about disclosure? If it is her view that it is not the heads of the intelligence services who should make that decision, can she share with the House her view on who should make that decision, so that we can be confident that there will be appropriate oversight of the disclosure process?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that this is a very complex issue, and that it is not an easy problem to solve, but we are committed to solving it, and we will continue to work with the heads of the intelligence services, the Intelligence and Security Committee, parliamentarians, the families, the Foreign Office, the Home Office and all Government Departments to ensure that we get this right and that there is protection, oversight, accountability and an amendment that the families can support. They do not want to see national security compromised. No one does. We are not prepared to go there, but we are prepared to do the right thing, and to ensure that there is candour across all public authorities.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The Minister was right when she said that trust has to be earned. I believe that she is really putting her heart and soul into earning the trust of the families. I thank her for her work in doing so, and I hope that it leads us to a satisfactory conclusion. Not everyone affected by Hillsborough is as close as the Minister is to the very important considerations that she has to balance, or indeed to the vagaries of parliamentary procedure and the way that Bills pass into law. Our constituents might only read the lurid headlines, or about the party political point scoring, and they see stories about the Bill being watered down or delayed. It is not great for people to read that, so I urge the Minister to make sure that the next time she, or anyone in the Government, makes a statement publicly on this Bill, it is to say that agreement has been reached, and it can go ahead.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, who, as the MP for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port, has been a vocal champion for the families at every stage of this process. It has been a privilege to work with him and other colleagues on this directly. He is right. This Bill might colloquially be called the Hillsborough law, and many people outside this place who are not aware of the issues might think it is about a tragic football match that happened 36 years ago, but it is about so much more than that. This Bill will provide the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation to anyone who has been affected by a death in which the state had a role, and it will be non-means-tested legal aid for the first time ever.
The Bill will also ensure that all public servants and authorities are bound by a legal and criminalised duty of candour. It will bring in new criminal offences of misleading the public and of misconduct in public office. This will be a truly landmark Bill that will change the culture of British life for the better, forever. That is what is at stake here. That is why this Bill is so important, and we are committed to bringing it forward as soon as possible, but we need to get it right for everyone. That is what the Government are committed to doing.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she is a woman on a mission, and let us hope that we get to the end of this before terribly long. We know that the Government are struggling with accepting the families’ wish that we should pick up amendment 23 and its consequential amendments. I am mystified about the business of a balance being struck between intelligence services personnel being transparent and the protection of national security, because my understanding was that we already had that balance; national security is safeguarded by the fact that in any inquiry, the release of sensitive information happens in closed session, via a High Court judge.
Schedule 1 includes a carve-out for the intelligence and security services, who are proven not to have told the truth. That is a dreadful shame. I am told that we have to trust what is said, but that seems entirely inappropriate, as the heads of the security services have unfortunately shown themselves not to be trustworthy. People talk about our allies being able to trust us, but if the heads of the security services are lying, I do not know how our allies are meant to trust us. Will the Minister please tell us what the problem is with amendment 23? It has been put together by Pete Wetherby, Elkan and others, and the families support it. Why can we not just agree to it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her service on the Public Bill Committee. Her thoughtful contributions there have made the Bill better. I will cite the great Pete Wetherby KC now at this Dispatch Box, and I hope I do him justice: there is no balance to be struck on national security, because national security should always come first. That is Pete Wetherby’s position, that is the families’ position, and that is the Government’s position. The Government always have to protect national security, and we will always do that, but the families have a right to the truth. I want to restate that there is no carve-out in this Bill for the intelligence services. They will be bound by a legal duty of candour, and it will apply to individual agents. All we need to do is find the mechanism by which that information is passed on to an investigation or inquiry. We are working at pace with the intelligence services and the families to find a way forward. This is very complex. It sounds simple, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is not. I am a woman on a mission, and I am determined to do this as soon as possible, but we need to get it right, and that is what this Government will do.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for the leadership that he has shown on this. It is right that we have a pause, but the Minister will know how distressing this is for the families, and about the emotional and physical toll that going back and forth to and from Parliament for decades has had on them. They came so close to this Bill being passed, only to encounter further disappointments and setbacks. This is the only experience that my constituents whose children were killed in the Manchester arena attack have had of meetings in Parliament to date, so can she assure us that when the Bill comes back, every single part of it will have the full involvement and support of the campaigners and families, and that there will be no more short-notice, unexpected amendments from the Government?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to her for all her tenacious campaigning on behalf of her constituents who have been through the unimaginable pain, trauma and grief of losing their children in the most horrific circumstances and then being denied the truth. It was a privilege to meet her constituents with the Prime Minister last week and to hear their truth, and I thank them again from the Dispatch Box for sharing their pain with us and sharing directly why this Bill is so important and why we need to get it right. Hearing their truth and hearing from the families is exactly why the Government have taken the decision to pause this legislation so that we can get it right. We are determined to do that by working with the families and hearing from them, and by working with the intelligence services.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Looking at the wider implications of the Bill, the Minister talks about the intelligence services. Can she confirm whether there is a carve-out for military intelligence services in any way? Looking at that more broadly still, will it also apply to special forces operations and personnel, and will it be applied retrospectively?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to put on the record that there is absolutely no carve-out here. The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including the armed forces and all intelligence services. We have worked collaboratively with our armed forces and with the Ministry of Defence in the design and creation of the legislation, and we will continue to do so. As I have said, the primary objective of this Government is to protect national security, and we will do that at all costs, but we also need to ensure that the families’ experiences are reflected in the Bill and that we get the legislation right, and that is exactly what we will do.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome the delay to the Bill. Too often Governments soldier on even when they are not getting things right, and that leads to bad legislation. This is something that we should get right before we send it to the other place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said, this is not just about the Hillsborough families, and I pay tribute to them for what they have done on behalf of others who have been wronged by the state. I say as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood that it is also about the people who were wronged in that scandal. It is about the nuclear test veterans, those wronged in the Horizon scandal in the Post Office and many others. What they have all shown us is that the state will lie to defend itself, and we do need this duty of candour for all, including the security services, who can give evidence in camera, so that they tell the truth to the public when they get things wrong, and so we can learn from it and move forwards.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right. This is a Bill for everyone who has been wronged and lied to and who has been subject to failures of the state when it was meant to protect them. This Bill is for much more than just the Hillsborough families; it is for the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, the LABRATS, the sub-postmasters, the victims of the Grenfell tragedy and, sadly, many more. It is for every citizen in this country who potentially could be caught up in this. It is about looking forward and getting this right for decades to come to ensure that when something goes wrong, the state, which is meant to protect people, tell them the truth and be open with transparency, frankness and candour, does just that. We will ensure that the Bill does that before it leaves the Commons.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the Minister for the constructive, collaborative and collegiate way in which she has worked, and I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). That is in stark contrast with the disgraceful words from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), and his behaviour in this statement. This whole process has been marked by parties of all shades and hues working together. In that spirit, I want to reassure the Hillsborough families that that is the way in which we have proceeded on our work in association with the Bill, and we will continue to do so.
I endorsed amendment 23—I think it is sound—and Pete Weatherby has also endorsed my amendment 20, which provides a simple role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. My question to the Minister is simple: when we see the next draft of the Bill, will there be a role for the ISC?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and comments. I pay tribute to him for his collaborative work, collegiate tone and all his constructive work in the Bill Committee—the Bill is better for it. The Bill is and always has been above party politics. For anyone to seek to use it for political gain is truly shameful and disgraceful. It is all about the victims and their families, and it always will be. I will ensure that we continue to work with him and the rest of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and any party that chooses to work collaboratively as the Bill progresses. I can assure him that there will be a role for the ISC; we will work with all partners and agencies to ensure that we get the Bill right.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her update and her acknowledgment of how important it is that the families who have suffered so much and campaigned so hard are satisfied by the final wording of the Bill. What assurances can she give us that the Government will provide the leadership, training and resources to change the culture of cover-up and minimalist responses, and ensure that people get the full truth the first time around?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s important question, which goes to the heart of exactly what the Bill is about. It is all very well for us to write fancy words on goatskin and ermine, but if we do not change the culture—the aim at the heart of the Bill—this process will have been pointless. We must change the culture, and the legislation is partly about that, but it is also about ensuring that we get the implementation right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are heading to Liverpool next week to see how we can learn from the world-leading work of the University of Liverpool on changing the culture through a duty of candour for public authorities. We are continuing that work at pace; none of it is stopping. We are continuing to work jointly on the Bill’s implementation, and on getting it right once it becomes law, while simultaneously developing the policy. I look forward to updating the House on that work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister very much for the statement. I also thank the Liverpool MPs, who have worked very hard to achieve balance in the Bill between citizens and the priority status of security agencies. As the Minister said, it is time for the Government to get this right, and that is what we should be doing.
My colleague Paul Frew, a Member of the Legislative Assembly back home, is taking a candour Bill through the Assembly. The obligation must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. May I ask the Minister a favour, if she does not mind? Will she work with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and with my colleague, to ensure that everyone will benefit, no matter whether they are in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Alex Davies-Jones
It gives me great pleasure to confirm that, to take this forward, we have had fantastic collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Government. Everyone has collectively been pursuing the aims of the Bill, which has been a true joy for me as a Member of Parliament from a nation with a devolved Government. All nations have given legislative consent for the criminal offences to apply UK-wide—that is positive. We will bring that amendment forward when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We continue to work collaboratively across the United Kingdom to ensure that a duty of candour applies to all public authorities in the United Kingdom.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The campaign for the Hillsborough law—not “a” Hillsborough law—has been this country’s greatest and most defining campaign for justice led by ordinary people in the modern era. I am very pleased that the Government pulled back at the weekend from what would have been—regardless of any good intentions—a betrayal of that campaign. The choice that the Prime Minister now makes will come to define his domestic legacy when all is done and dusted.
Will the Minister put on the record the understanding that those of us with closer proximity to power than the people who have campaigned courageously for this law have a tendency to be too trusting of others in powerful institutions? The security services sometimes let people down, and they sometimes do not effectively protect the lives of people in our country, so a duty of candour should apply to them, too. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is not off the table and will now be fully and properly considered before the Bill comes back to this House?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and comments, and I can reassure him and everyone again that the duty of candour will apply to all public servants, including the intelligence services and individual agents. That is the intent and it will be in this legislation. We will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to ensure that we get this right. We will work with the families who have that lived experience. The Prime Minister has heard from them directly about why it is so important that the intelligence services are captured, and they will be by the duty of candour in this legislation. We will work together to ensure that we get the legislation right.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in her positive discussions with the Scottish Government relating to the provisions of non-means tested legal aid? Will Scottish families enjoy the same access to justice as those in the rest of our United Kingdom, and at the same time?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and again thank him for his service on the Public Bill Committee. It was fantastic to have another Member of Parliament from a devolved nation represented on the Bill Committee to discuss why it is so important that everyone in the United Kingdom should benefit from this legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government have indicated that they would like to be part of the mechanism for legal aid, and they have asked us to include them in this legislation. Those discussions are ongoing. It will, of course, be for the Scottish Government to determine the methodology for how they determine who gets legal aid for their fatal accident inquiries and inquests. Those discussions are ongoing, but we have had very positive discussions with the Scottish Government.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I travelled through Manchester Victoria station on the day of the arena bombing and I saw the young people on their way into that concert. They were young, vibrant, excited, happy—all the things that they deserved to be, doing the most normal thing in the world: going to see a concert. It was one of the most shocking moments of my life a few hours later to hear that they had been the victims of a terrorist attack. It is painful to me that they were let down by the state and by false narratives. Almost a decade later, I am glad that the families are being listened to. I thank the Minister for her assurance that we are going to take the time to get this right. Can she please confirm that the voices of all the victims and all the families of state cover-ups and of these tragedies will be at the centre of any legislation that comes forward from this point on?
Murder and Manslaughter Abroad: Family Information Guide (England and Wales)
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am today announcing the publication of the family information guide for families bereaved by murder and manslaughter abroad.
I recognise how deeply distressing and traumatic such events are, and the Government are committed to ensuring that such victims can access the help that they need. This guidance sets out the support available from agencies and specialist services in England or Wales.
Until now, there has been no single, victim-oriented guide, which has often led to challenges for families in understanding what is available to them. This new guidance consolidates existing information as to the services available to support families, and signposts support in a way that is clear and accessible. Through this guidance, we aim to improve awareness of the support available, offering reassurance to families at a difficult time.
The guidance sets out:
What families can expect in the immediate aftermath of a death abroad, including initial contact and support from agencies in England and Wales;
The ongoing support available to family members to help them through this difficult time and which meets their individual needs. This includes access to emotional support, legal guidance, financial assistance and referrals to specialist services.
The roles and responsibilities of agencies and support services with which families may engage, in order to ensure families understand who is involved, what each agency does and how they can help.
Clear information on how to access services and what to expect at each stage of the process.
I am grateful for the commitment of Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council in preparing this guidance.
I also wish to thank the Victims Commissioner’s Office and the charity Murdered Abroad for their invaluable support in making this guidance as helpful as possible for victims, and for their continued commitment to improving services for bereaved families.
I pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, whose advocacy for families bereaved by murder and manslaughter abroad was instrumental in shaping this guidance.
The guidance will be available online, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/murder-and-manslaughter-abroad-family-information-guide
[HCWS1229]
HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for public safety following the admission that two dangerous offenders, including a convicted murderer, absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
A happy new year to you and to all in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On 1 January 2026, three prisoners absconded from HMP Leyhill, an open prison: Mr Thomas, Mr Washbourne and Mr Armstrong. This was discovered during routine roll checks, and their absence was followed up immediately. On 3 January, the police issued a public appeal to assist with their recapture. As you have stated, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the prisoners, Aaron Thomas, has since been arrested and is scheduled to appear before magistrates today. He will then be returned to closed conditions. The other individuals remain unlawfully at large, and police are actively pursuing them. The Government take every abscond seriously. In line with the prevention of abscond policy framework, the prison group director for HMP Leyhill has commissioned a review, which will be completed within 20 days.
These individuals had been moved to open conditions at different points in 2025 after recommendations made by the independent Parole Board. There was no recent intelligence regarding a potential abscond by these prisoners. When it comes to an offender serving a life sentence or an indeterminate sentence for public protection, as these prisoners are, a transfer to open conditions will be approved only following a recommendation by the Parole Board, other than in exceptional circumstances. Before making a recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding. At the time these risk assessments were completed, the prisoners were deemed suitable for open conditions. We are continuing to work and engage with the victims and the victims’ families, either through the victim contact scheme or via the police where relevant. Currently, we have made contact with two victims through the victim contact scheme.
Robert Jenrick
So a murderer is on the loose—a murderer and a violent offender. Once again, the Justice Secretary’s strongest ever checks have been a resounding failure, and once again there is a manhunt under way. Precious police resources are being wasted to fix Calamity’s latest cock-up. And where is the Justice Secretary? The Ministry of Justice seems to lose its Secretary of State as much as it does its prisoners. Has his aunt taken him to the January sales to find him a new suit, just in case he gets let loose on Prime Minister’s questions again?
Let me ask the Minister instead: why was someone who robbed and brutally killed a man by bashing him on the head with a brick—a man who led a prison riot and attacked prison officers repeatedly—deemed safe for open prison? Why, as we have just learned, did it take 48 hours for the police to raise the alarm? How many other murderers are there in open prisons? How many more mistaken releases have there been since the Justice Secretary last came clean? Once again, the safety of the public is being compromised by the breathtaking incompetence of his Department.
What a Christmas it has been for the Justice Secretary. On Boxing day, he said he was delighted to welcome into Britain an extremist who hates our country. The following day, it was revealed that he had invited a disgraced ex-Labour politician convicted of spreading homophobic smears to his official swearing-in as Lord Chancellor. Days later, he paid an Islamist double murderer thousands in compensation, alongside hundreds of thousands in legal fees, much of it to the Justice Secretary’s own colleague’s spouse. Then the Prime Minister’s mentor, a leading KC who clapped him into Downing Street, slammed his shameful plan to slash jury trials. To top it all off, on new year’s day we learned that these prisoners had been let loose. Well, happy new year from the Justice Secretary. It is little wonder that in his first interview of 2026, he said that he was seeking divine retribution—sorry, he meant to say divine intervention. Well, with more of this, God help us all.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am afraid that it is a new year but the same sad, old Jenrick. The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not done his homework. He does not seem to know the difference between releases in error and absconds. This is a Member who wants to be the Lord Chancellor and the next Leader of the Opposition, and he is deliberately muddying the waters here to suit his own agenda.
We are seeing the deep-rooted issues caused by years of chronic underfunding and mismanagement by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government play out. The crisis that our prisons face today was built up over 14 years and the Tories are the chief architects. This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable. It was the choice of the Conservatives, made again and again for 14 years. They abandoned their posts and put public safety at risk by allowing our prisons to reach bursting point. He talks about public safety, but they left our prisons at breaking point with not enough room to lock up any dangerous criminals. If it were not for the decisive action that this Government took, the police would have been unable to make any arrests, courts would have ceased to function, and there would have been a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times.
Those who abscond face serious consequences. We take our responsibilities very seriously, and that is one of the reasons why there has been a dramatic fall in the number of absconds over the last 20 years. It is one of the success stories that the Tories actually had in government, and the right hon. Gentleman should celebrate that because elsewhere their record is much less rosy.
As the Tories were packing their bags to leave office, temporary release failures hit a 13-year high on their watch. The prison system was in chaos, and they presided over 17 releases in error a month in their last six months in office. They said that they were the Government of security and safety, yet they oversaw violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. To cover up for their failures, they covertly let out 10,000 prisoners early as part of their chaotic early release scheme. The Tories claim to be the party of law and order; instead, their legacy was lawless disorder. Now they have the barefaced audacity to come to this House and make demands as if they had never been in government, as if they had never ever overseen a crisis in our criminal justice system.
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s solution to this crisis? To do nothing—to ignore the evidence that places people in open conditions to help them prepare for life outside and reduce their risk of reoffending, and to turf people out of prison with no support and just hope that everything turns out okay. The Tories are not serious people. They are not serious or ready for Government. They have no solutions to the problems that they created.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
In the light of these escapes from a class D prison, will the Government look again at the policy and process for moving prisoners to open prisons earlier in their sentence as a consequence of prison overcrowding? Does the legacy of the previous Government mean that prisoners may be located in prisons because of the space available, rather than their suitability for the type of offender?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his probing. He will be aware that to deal with the crisis in prison capacity that the Tories left us, this is what we had to do. The policy of moving prisoners to open prisons began under the Conservatives. Typically, they tried to keep quiet about it when they were in government. We have been open and transparent. We have looked at exactly how we have done this as part of our strategy to deal with overcrowding and, thankfully, through our Sentencing Bill—which the Tories are trying to wreck, by the way—we will ensure that our prisons never ever reach breaking point again. However, open prisons are part of the course to rehabilitation and part of ensuring that we make better citizens rather than better criminals, and they have worked and operated effectively under successive Governments.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The news that offenders absconded from HMP Leyhill on new year’s day is yet another example of the glaring incompetence of the MOJ when it comes to maintaining control of the prison population. This situation has yet again placed the public at risk and lets down victims. It also raises serious questions about why some of these prisoners were placed in a category D prison. Matthew Armstrong, a convicted murderer, has a history of violent incidents in custody, including leading a riot and attacking prison guards. Given that record, why did the MOJ feel able to approve his transfer to an open prison? What steps are the Government taking to review the criteria for violent offenders being assessed for transfer to category D prisons when they could pose a risk to the public again? What additional resources are being provided to the victims of these individuals, including the prison officer assaulted by Armstrong who is no longer serving? I hope that lessons are being learned from the case of Lenny Scott.
Does the Minister believe that poor transfer decisions are being made based on a lack of capacity in our closed prisons, or is she satisfied that the processes of the Parole Board and the Department are strong enough? Can she reassure the House now that we will not be coming back to have this same conversation again in 2027?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the questions from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. To reassure the House, offenders who are serving a life sentence or an IPP sentence for public protection will be approved for a transfer to open conditions only in response to a recommendation by the Parole Board. Before making that recommendation, the Parole Board conducts a thorough risk assessment of the offender’s risk of harm and risk of absconding, taking into account all those assessments provided by qualified HM Prison and Probation Service staff and other agencies. The Secretary of State does have the ability to reject a recommendation from the Parole Board, but to do so they would need evidence to dispute the board’s assessment of risk. Officials, on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that there were no grounds under the published policy to reject the board’s recommendations for any of these three individuals.
On absconding more generally, it is important that I state categorically to the House that there were 57 absconds in the year ending March 2025, which is a 2% decrease from 58 the previous year. The number of absconds is falling year on year, and has fallen from 143 in the 12 months to March 2020. It is coming down substantially due to a sustained focus on this area. Open prisons work; they are a key part of the programme of rehabilitation and of reintegrating offenders into society. However, sometimes prisoners abscond and it is important that all steps are taken to bring them back into custody when that occurs.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I must have a bit of amnesia in the new year, because I cannot seem to recall any circumstances in which the shadow Secretary of State raised in the House the 143 abscondments that happened on his Government’s watch—perhaps it is only when a leadership bid is in the offing that he cares about this issue. Will the Minister set out what steps she has taken to ensure that these prisoners are returned to custody and what measures are in place to deter prisoners from absconding in future?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. He is right: amnesia seems to be going around the Opposition a lot faster these days. In July last year, as well as refreshing internal security frameworks, the Government published a new policy framework that sets out definitions, reporting expectations and response requirements. We are working with all relevant agencies, including the police, and the public, following the public appeal that went out on 3 January to get everyone behind bringing these prisoners back into custody and putting them into closed conditions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Justice Committee member, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Since October of last year, five people have absconded from Leyhill, which suggests that there are systemic issues around both security and licensing arrangements. I suspect that those are not bespoke to Leyhill, but are used across the wider open prison estate. With that in mind, what has the Minister’s Department done to tighten those arrangements to ensure that this does not happen again, not just at Leyhill, but at any other open prison?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As he will be aware from my previous answers, absconds have actually decreased across our open prison estate: they have come down by 2% on the previous year. However, whenever an abscond happens, a rapid review will take place. A rapid review is taking place into the absconds at HMP Leyhill. It will be done within 20 days and I will ensure that it is brought forward.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Any prisoner absconding is, of course, bad news and something that should not happen, but does the Minister agree that it is a symptom of the broken-down prison system that we inherited from the previous Government and something that we are now trying to sort out? Can she confirm that the rate of prisoners absconding is lower under this Government than it was under the previous Government?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right: the levels are decreasing. That is due to the strong and robust frameworks on absconding prisoners that we are putting in place. We inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse and took immediate action days after coming into office to stabilise our prisons. We are bearing down on releases in error, which have caused huge upset and concern to victims and can put the public at risk. I state again at the Dispatch Box that that is wholly unacceptable. We have introduced mandatory stronger release checks to catch those errors before they happen, as that is the most effective way of protecting the public, and Dame Lynne Owens is examining the causes of releases in error.
Abscondment numbers are coming down. I am proud of the work that has been done. Any abscondment is one too many and we are working to bring that number down even further.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The police have said that the prisoners who absconded from the open prison HMP Leyhill are dangerous and should not be approached by the public. How can any prisoner described in that way be in an open prison? It defies logic, Minister.
Alex Davies-Jones
The right hon. Lady will be aware that the decision regarding Parole Board recommendations to move prisoners to open prisons has been made by successive Governments. This is a policy decision. The Parole Board makes independent decisions. At the time of those risk assessments, no concerns were raised about the risk of harm to the public or absconding in relation to any of the prisoners who have absconded.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
When we see offenders abscond from prison, it is understandable that many people feel unsafe. Our thoughts are particularly with the victims and their friends and families. Does the Minister agree that absconding is not only a serious criminal offence, but a symptom of years of austerity and chronic underfunding that saw our prison system pushed to breaking point?
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. This is just another symptom of the crisis we inherited in our criminal justice system. Whether prisons, courts or probation, every single aspect of the system was at breaking point following 14 years of underfunding and mismanagement by the Conservative party. We are working as quickly as we can to bring back to justice the two prisoners who absconded. My thoughts are with the victims. We have made contact with two of the victims and their families via the victim contact scheme. I encourage the public to get behind the police’s public appeal to bring those prisoners to justice.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
What steps are being taken to ensure that prisons are adequately staffed with properly trained and equipped guards, and that IT systems receive long-overdue updates, to ensure that there are no further escapes across the whole prison network?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is correct. We are investing in the IT systems in our prisons, which are needed to reduce releases in error, and in the brilliant and brave men and women who serve on the frontline as prison officers, day in, day out in very difficult conditions. They have been chronically underfunded for the past 14 years. They are brilliant servicepeople and they deserve our praise—I pay tribute to them. They are working in difficult conditions, but we are investing in them and in the technology that will help them in their everyday job.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Some Opposition spokespeople clearly think that it is still pantomime season; they should take this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
What is the consequence for absconding from an open prison? Being in an open prison is a privilege, as part of rehabilitation; it is not the right of any prisoner to be there.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is a good point. The prisoners who have absconded were at the end of their sentences. They were working through rehabilitation in order to reintegrate into society. They have let themselves, their families and the victims down. They have basically come to the end of the marathon—the final mile—and let themselves down. They will now be returned to closed conditions, and could, if the courts determine it appropriate, have more time added to their sentences, but we must be careful in discussing ongoing cases.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
With two dangerous offenders on the run, many of our constituents will rightly be very concerned and worried. Will the Minister explain what resources are being deployed to capture those offenders as soon as possible?
Alex Davies-Jones
When a prisoner absconds from open conditions, the prison must notify the police immediately, so that officers can locate the individual and return them to custody. Local governors have good working relationships with their local police forces and maintain constant communication about efforts to locate prisoners who are at large, including on whether to launch a public appeal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the police launched a public appeal on 3 January to assist them in locating the prisoners. I encourage any member of the public who spots the prisoners not to approach them but to alert the local police so that we can bring them back into custody.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Once again, the Opposition have clearly absconded from reality. Will the Minister remind the House what the previous Government—of which the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), was part—actually did to clamp down on absconds?
Alex Davies-Jones
Nothing—absolutely nothing. Absconds decreased under the previous Labour Government, and that trend carried on under the Tories until they failed—they have the poorest ever record. The number is down 2% on last year. The Conservatives’ failure to get to grips with this, fund our prisons and probation system effectively, and deal with the crumbling infrastructure of our prisons system has resulted in this crisis in our prisons. The Labour party is getting on with the job of cleaning up their mess.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister is keen to take credit for the reduced rate of absconsions. What specific steps have the Government taken to reduce that rate? Will she reassure the public that every single one of the 57 prisoners who absconded—less the two currently at large—have been re-apprehended?
Alex Davies-Jones
I congratulate the hon. Member on his happy news over the Christmas break. It is lovely for us to have some positive news to celebrate in this place.
In April 2025, the Government introduced changes to the eligibility for open conditions from three years to five. We also strengthened mandatory checks in offender assessment system reviews and victim liaison officer notifications, and introduced mandatory seven-day transfer reviews and mandatory security inputting. We upped the assessments necessary for a prisoner to be moved into open prison. We are reducing the number of absconsions—there has been a 2% decrease on last year, as I said—and we hope to go further. Open conditions work; they are about rehabilitation. Tagging also works, which is why we are investing £700 million in probation to increase tagging and probation.
As for the 57 prisoners, I do not have those figures to hand, but I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with them.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former maths teacher, I would be very interested to see the trends with regard to absconsions and the moving average over a period of time. However, ultimately one absconsion by a dangerous criminal is one too many. More specifically, what is the Minister doing to support and train prison staff to ensure they understand the system and the increased checks that she mentioned?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that positive question. My hon. Friend is right that this this is going to take all of us working together across the prison system—everyone in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. I again pay tribute to our brilliant staff who are working on the frontline in very difficult, challenging conditions every single day in an underfunded, chronically in chaos prison system that we are having to rebuild literally brick by brick. Our staff are our biggest asset in this, and we are working with them and the trade unions to make sure they have all the equipment, tools and training necessary to ensure that the number of absconsions comes down.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My constituents are concerned that high-risk violent prisoners are increasingly being placed in Leyhill open prison, putting local residents at risk when they abscond. Will the Minister review the process for assessing prisoners prior to a move? With new rapid deployment cells expected to be online at Leyhill by the summer, will she also meet me to discuss what steps the Government are taking to ensure that those cells will not be used for high-risk prisoners, and to increase security to prevent escapes?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady will be aware that the policy regarding recommendations for moving to an open prison is handled by the independent Parole Board. That is a policy that has been carried out by successive Governments. I will ensure that she receives a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss her concerns further, and a review into the absconsions at HMP Leyhill will be done within 20 days.
Criminal Justice System: Wales
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for bringing this important debate to the House this evening. She will know that I am a proud Justice Minister, but I am also a very proud Welsh MP. I therefore recognise everything she said as a constituency MP. All my thoughts are with Gwenno’s family. I will happily meet Karen to answer her questions directly. I will ensure that the meeting happens.
Gwenno is a prime example of exactly how the criminal justice system is not working. It is exactly why we set up the women's justice board. It is exactly why we need to close the gaps and ensure that women like Gwenno are given the support that they need, rather than necessarily a prison sentence. It is why we have taken forward work looking at recommendations on short sentences, which serve no one, and potentially create better criminals, rather than better citizens. It is why there needs to be better wraparound support, and better support services available for women like Gwenno. It is a mission of this Government and of the Justice Department to ensure that we do not fail women like Gwenno going forward.
I also sincerely thank the right hon. Member for her continuing engagement on, and interest in, the justice system, not just in Wales but generally. She has been a tireless advocate. I welcome all engagement with her. It is not the first debate she has had on the matter, and I am sure that it will not be the last. She has tabled amendments to the Sentencing Bill, and has sought to change the probation landscape in Wales, which she also discussed. During a debate on the Sentencing Bill, she noted the impact that the Bill will have on probation in Wales; she mentioned it again this evening, as well as the work of the Thomas commission and the Brown report on the devolution of powers to Wales, which I have read closely. I know all too well about the interface between reserved and devolved services, as an MP representing a devolved constituency; she mentioned that jagged edge. She also noted the importance of using data to inform services and practices. This debate gives us a further opportunity to explore those issues in detail, and allows us to examine justice policy and the delivery landscape in Wales. I welcome that wholeheartedly.
First, I would like to deal with the commissions and reports that have considered justice and devolution in Wales, and the jagged edge that we have sadly heard so much about this evening. As the right hon. Lady noted, a number of commissions have looked into the wider devolution of powers to Wales, as well as the devolution of justice. The Thomas commission recognised the complex landscape when it comes to justice in Wales. It examined the interface between reserved and devolved responsibilities, and the delivery of many of the support services provided by devolved authorities on justice-related issues—a matter that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Yes, these interfaces exist, but it is not necessarily true that they cause problems in the delivery of justice in Wales. The Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service all work together with the devolved authorities on a day-to-day basis to ensure that delivery meets the distinct needs of Wales.
The Ministry of Justice engages with the Welsh Government through several structured mechanisms aimed at co-ordinating justice delivery. These include: a formal concordat between the MOJ and the Welsh Government, which establishes principles for co-operation; a memorandum of understanding on offender education; the Criminal Justice Board for Wales, which co-ordinates across criminal justice agencies and partners to oversee work on cross-cutting challenges in justice delivery for Wales; the Justice in Wales Strategy Group, which acts as the senior strategic-level interface on justice issues between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Welsh Government on key areas of policy and reform; and the inter-ministerial group for justice, a cross-Government forum that enables formal and regular engagement on justice issues among the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, and which addresses matters of shared interest.
The Minister with responsibility for sentencing, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), met our devolved counterparts in the past week, and I have also recently met my counterpart in the Welsh Government to discuss cross-jurisdictional issues. We regularly meet and have collaborative conversations. This is in addition to the daily official-level engagement on a range of issues. As a result, I am pleased to inform the House that justice delivery in Wales is performing well. Prisons are, believe it or not, performing well. HMPPS in Wales has five public prisons: Cardiff, Swansea, Usk, Prescoed and Berwyn, and one private prison, Parc.
Liz Saville Roberts
On the matter of courts, there has been much debate about the removal of jury trial in certain circumstances, but I am told that in Wales, we do not have those court backlogs, and that this is a problem in England that could be imposed on Wales. Is there not the potential to leave the status quo as it is in Wales? We could then see whether the proposal works by making a comparison between Wales and England. I am told that the courts in Wales are not in the same position as those in England, as regards backlogs, at all.
Alex Davies-Jones
I would like to see the information that the right hon. Lady has, because the information I have had is that our court system in Wales has quite a severe backlog. Victims and survivors who I speak to in Wales daily have told me that they are waiting years for their case to get to trial. That backlog is very real. If the right hon. Lady has information to the contrary, I would welcome that. We know that the issue in our courts is quite severe at the moment.
Going back to our prisons, HMP Usk scored the highest possible score across all four areas of assessment. Despite a challenging time across the estates, HMPPS in Wales identified strengths in leadership and governance, along with collaborative working with the Welsh Government. It shows that this can be done well, and all our prisons have robust action plans in place to ensure continued improvement and ongoing development.
The right hon. Lady mentioned our Welsh courts. They are performing well. The Crown court performance in Wales is one of the best in the country. However, backlogs still exist. Also on backlogs in Welsh courts, there is concern about magistrates courts in Wales. Civil and family justice is performing well. Wales has seen successful initiatives, such as the pathfinder pilot, which is transforming private family law proceedings in Wales by offering a less adversarial process, focused on early intervention, especially for domestic abuse cases. I have seen that at first hand in Newport and Cardiff.
However, we must do more to continue to improve delivery. One recommendation of the Thomas commission was that justice data should be Wales-specific and more detailed, and that there should be disaggregated data, reflecting distinct Welsh needs. Such data is crucial to effective delivery in Wales. It is important to note that disaggregated, Wales-specific data is already collected and published. A comprehensive review of nearly 400 Welsh Government priority data requests found that 40% of the requested data had already been published, with clear signposting provided to aid navigation.
Notwithstanding that, the Government recognise the importance of specific data in policy development and operational delivery, so last month, Lord Timpson, the Minister in the other place, wrote to the Welsh Government to set out areas where we will now collect additional, disaggregated data for Wales. I will happily keep the right hon. Lady updated on that.
Over the past 18 months, the Ministry of Justice has worked collaboratively with Welsh Government officials and stakeholders, including Dr Robert Jones of the Wales Governance Centre, and has made significant steps forward in Welsh data collection and disaggregation. We have focused on improving transparency, accessibility and relevance of Welsh-specific justice data. We have developed and published a new Welsh-specific dataset, including the annual management information release on Welsh prisoner data, and a bespoke Welsh reoffending data release for the Equality and Social Justice Committee. Additional breakdowns, such as custody type by institution and deaths under probation supervision in approved premises, were published in the October 2025 offender management statistics quarterly release.
Liz Saville Roberts
I welcome the disaggregated data. It has been quite a battle to get that, but it indicates that this is an area that the new Government are interested in. If a complete dataset shows us that there are certain tendencies from year to year, and that justice is not being served well in Wales, I hope the Government will consider the evidence put before them.
Alex Davies-Jones
We will always be evidence-led. The right hon. Lady mentioned that the issue is not political. We will always look at what the data is telling us, and I will happily work with her and other colleagues on that.
We have also committed to publishing further data—for example, on homelessness by institution, and on the Welsh language. It is a severe concern to me that Welsh prisoners are not able to converse in their mother tongue, and it is important that we address that. We are committed to publishing that data when it is available. It is anticipated by the end of 2026. We are also supporting the development of a publicly available Welsh Government dashboard. We have facilitated data sharing agreements, including agreements on Welsh youth justice data.
In addition, substantial volumes of data are now accessible via the Office for National Statistics Secure Research Service and the Welsh Government-funded SAIL—secure anonymised information linkage—databank, and this will support evidence-based policy development. Officials will continue to enhance Welsh data provision when opportunities arise. We will promote awareness of existing datasets and maintain engagement with stakeholders to understand emerging priorities.
I turn to the impact of criminal justice initiatives on devolved services, which I know is an area of interest for the right hon. Lady. In our manifesto, we committed to undertaking a strategic review of probation, which will also cover devolution, and we are working constructively with the Welsh Government on this—I want to reassure her on that point. That includes developing a memorandum of understanding on co-commissioning and local working partnerships. That is still in development and, again, I will happily bring her into that, to ensure that we get this right, and that we do not just get a replica of Manchester, but instead do bespoke work for Wales that is Wales-specific.
However, the right hon. Lady will be aware that the criminal justice system faces acute and significant pressures, and we are taking action as a Government to remedy the situation. The Sentencing Bill and upcoming legislation to implement the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts are key components of that action, and we will need time to bed that in. It is important that we take time to get that right. Our priority is to ensure that the system is stabilised before we undertake any further review of the governance arrangements, but we will do so.
We will continue to ensure that the impact of this work on devolved services is considered carefully, and we will continue to work with the Welsh Government and devolved authorities to ensure that the system works effectively and sustainably in Wales. We have already had a number of discussions with the Welsh Government about this work and the impact on devolved authorities, and my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to engage with Welsh Government Ministers on all justice issues to ensure that they can inform policy development and delivery, and reflect the distinct and specific needs of the people of Wales.
To conclude, the justice system is, as we are all sadly aware, facing unprecedented challenges, particularly in the criminal justice space. The Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse, which would have left the courts unable to send offenders to prison and the police unable to arrest dangerous criminals. By working closely with our partners in Wales, we are delivering a system that is meeting the needs of Welsh users. The picture in Wales is positive, in the criminal, civil and family space, and we are striving to ensure that these partnerships continue to improve justice delivery in Wales.
Again, I extend a hand to the right hon. Lady and colleagues across the political divide, and offer to work with them to ensure that we get this right, because this is not political; this is about serving the needs of the people of Wales. When we came into office, we spoke of the difference that a Labour Government working at both ends of the M4 would have for Wales. This is that delivery in action. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question. The Government are committed to reforming the family court to improve support for adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The pathfinder model provides expert support to victims and doubles the proportion of children seen by social workers. A quarter of all relevant cases will follow this model by January, and we are determined to go further.
Sarah Green
The Minister clearly knows that the backlog in the family court is causing real distress. I have one family who have waited over a year for a court hearing. A year is a long time for a child, and we know that others are waiting even longer. Will the Minister share what specific measures she is taking to ensure that cases involving children and vulnerable families are resolved more quickly?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is right; the delays in our family court are untenable, and families, children particularly, are waiting too long for resolution. That is why we are determined to go further by rolling out our pathfinder model to ensure a child-centric approach to the family court. She will be aware that we are determined to repeal the presumption of parental involvement through our Victims and Courts Bill, which is going through the House. We are also determined to really get to grips with our family court. If the hon. Lady writes to me about that specific case, I will ensure that she gets a full response.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
All misogyny is abhorrent, but we know that online misogyny is becoming increasingly pervasive. We have criminalised the creation of intimate deepfakes without consent, and we are creating new offences in the Crime and Policing Bill that will mean that perpetrators who take intimate images without consent face up to two years in prison. We will go further to ensure that we stamp out misogyny wherever it is—online or in the real world.
Irene Campbell
My constituent Dr Sam Rice has set up a grassroots charity called Kids For Now, which supports parents who want to delay smartphones for their children. There is much evidence to support that approach. For example, Ofsted has found that 80% of teenage girls are put under pressure to provide sexual images of themselves, which often end up online. Does the Minister agree that the effect that online misogyny has on children must be tackled?
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Online misogyny radicalises our boys, pressures our girls, and fuels harmful attitudes. It must be tackled in order to protect all our children. The Government are acting through tougher laws, including the Online Safety Act 2023, and our upcoming violence against women and girls strategy will protect children from harm online. Prevention is fundamental, so we are supporting schools to teach children about respect, consent and healthy relationships. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for Education is in Australia right now learning about the model used over there to see how we can best learn lessons from it and apply them here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is quite clear that it is important that we all work together across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, we should take that a stage further and work together with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we both can combat online misogyny. What discussions has the Minister had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly on how we can do that work better in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know that these crimes have no borders, especially online misogyny crimes. They do not take place in a silo, and it will take all of us to tackle them, including those of us in the England and Wales jurisdiction of the criminal justice system and those across our devolved counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland—and, as he states, in the Republic of Ireland too. We regularly meet with our counterparts to discuss these issues, and no stone will be left unturned when it comes to tackling misogyny.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government take seriously concerns about the operation of this Hague convention in situations where domestic abuse is present. Internationally, the UK continues to work with other parties of the convention to ensure that it operates effectively, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. We have been an active member of the steering committee for two international forums to discuss and share best practice on this issue, and we have contributed financially to support these events.
Lisa Smart
Two of my Hazel Grove constituents, who I will not name because they are going through active cases, have fled Australia and Poland with their children due to domestic abuse and coercive control from their partners. Many mothers in similar circumstances face the prospect of being compelled to return to the country from which they fled in order to accompany their children under the Hague convention. I had a very constructive meeting with the Minister back in June, since when the second forum on domestic violence and the 1980 child abduction convention has taken place in Brazil. Could the Minister update the House on what progress was made at that forum and whether the Government plan to bring forward proposals—legislative or otherwise—to strengthen legal protections for mothers and children fleeing abuse under the Hague convention?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the hon. Lady’s question and her continued engagement on this really important issue. The Government are now considering initiating further qualitative research on the operation of the 1980 Hague convention in cases relating to domestic abuse. I can confirm that this research will inform any future policy and ensure that reforms are grounded in robust evidence, improving outcomes for both children and survivors. I will endeavour to keep her updated and involved in the development of that.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
At the beginning of December, a sapling from the Sycamore Gap tree was planted by Micala Trussler and her family to commemorate what would have been her daughter’s 18th birthday. Since Holly Newton’s tragic murder, Micala has campaigned tirelessly to reduce the age limit at which someone can legally be classified as a domestic abuse victim. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising Micala’s tireless campaigning, and meet Micala and me in the new year to discuss age classification for victims of domestic abuse?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I will, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and Micala, and I thank her for her tireless campaigning on this issue. I share the concerns about abuse in teenage relationships, and I am pleased to say that we are conducting a scoping review of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which will cover the age limit for victims, to ensure that it captures adolescent relationships. The upcoming violence against women and girls strategy will set out steps to tackle teenage relationship abuse. I look forward to meeting him and Micala.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. It was an honour to meet him, victims and bereaved families who have been affected by this horrific situation. Our thoughts remain with those grieving families, who rightly expect their babies and the deceased to be treated with dignity and respect. That is the minimum that they deserve. We are committed to taking action. He might be aware that the Department of Health and Social Care today published its interim review into the Fuller inquiry. I look forward to reading that, and to working with him and others to ensure that the recommendations are followed.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
In Rochdale, our police work closely with staff from the sexual assault referral centre in St Mary’s in Manchester, who help rape victims through every step of the legal process. For many rape victims, the most traumatic thing is facing their rapist in court, so will the Government explain how they will help stop victims being smeared by defence lawyers as money grabbers? How can we take evidence of previous domestic abuse into account in court?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is why we are determined to ensure that rape victims are treated with compassion and dignity throughout the entire criminal justice process. We are committed to implementing the Law Commission’s review on bad character evidence and to tackling those rape myths and stereotypes, and we are committed to our manifesto commitment of introducing independent legal advisers for adult rape victims to ensure that they get the support they desperately need.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Ministers have responded helpfully to me on two previous occasions regarding the “68 is too late” campaign. On both occasions—last January and most recently in writing in September—the Government indicated that they were prepared to amend or at least review pension provisions. Indeed, a working group was established to examine similar terms currently in place within the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister provide an update on the working group’s proposals and the Government’s intentions?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Survivors’ Network supports all victims of sexual assault and abuse in Sussex. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and I met representatives of the network at the start of the month, they told us that, owing to the rising costs of national insurance contributions and inflation, £40,000 of its costs are now unfunded. Given the Government’s emphasis on driving down sexual violence, is this the right decision?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady may have missed the announcement that £550 million would be invested in victim support services, the biggest amount ever. I have met victim support services across England and Wales who have welcomed that announcement. The money will be transformational—it will change lives. However, victim support on its own is not enough, which is why we need to take every possible step to reform our criminal justice system, which this Government are doing.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Hillsborough law will deliver a generational strengthening of legal aid, but does the Minister share my constituents’ concern about the fact that the Scottish Government have yet to confirm that similar non-means-tested legal aid will be available to bereaved families in Scotland?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that we have had positive conversations with the Scottish Government about extending the provision to Scotland. This is a matter for them, but we are engaging in positive conversations, and they have shown willing in wanting to adopt the same model that we will be adopting to provide non-means-tested legal aid for all bereaved families when there has been state involvement in the death of their loved ones.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Has the Ministry of Justice had any contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland in relation to the looming crisis in criminal justice arising from the fact that on 5 January the criminal barristers will go on strike because there has not been an uplift in legal aid rates since 2005? If contact is made, will the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland be asked why, given her statutory duty to review the rates, she paused the last review in 2022, and why the interim uplift that she announced last year has never been paid?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is right: I am a woman on a mission. I will meet her early in the new year, ahead of Report, to discuss her amendments and the Bill’s progress through the House.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Byrne
Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts.
The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation.
The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection.
The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent.
Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused, or had the potential to cause harm will achieve that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why.
The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now. That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure in mind where, at a minimum, potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm.
The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases. The harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill.
The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. Hillsborough families spoke of the importance of individual accountability, and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play.
Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.
Seamus Logan
Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them.
It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity.
In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.
Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger.
As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false.
However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level.
It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation.
Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that action. That is why we think a tighter safeguard should be required.
It is not in the amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister about what thought has been given to whether prosecution should be subject to the Attorney General’s permission. Forgive me: I do not know if that is already part of the legislation; I do not think it is, but the Minister will know. For example, when it comes to public order offences—another potentially contentious area—we ask the Attorney General to give permission for prosecution to serve as a safeguard against the inappropriate use of measures.
My final, more general point about clause 11, which we touched on earlier, is about the maximum sentence of two years. What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether there have been any common law versions of a prosecution for this sort of thing in which someone was given a sentence of more than two years? Are the Government sure that this is not unnecessarily constrained compared with the current common law position, which is unlimited? I appreciate that the offences in question are normally more to do with misconduct rather than misleading, but it would still be helpful to get that reassurance.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. We agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind the amendment, and I can assure him that the Bill achieves that intent. Schedule 3 makes further provision regarding clause 5 and clause 11 offences. Paragraph 2(2) sets out that,
“Proceedings for an offence under section 11 may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
With that clarification, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment. Hopefully, I can answer some of his other queries as we move through the debate.
Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, which is designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough, where officials intentionally spread a false narrative to protect their reputation and caused harm as a result. That, as the shadow Minister rightly states, is punishable by up to two years in prison. We all know the harm that caused and how, three decades on, families are still fighting for justice and accountability for what the spreading of that narrative did. The Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Tuesday was clear: a lie was told; a false narrative was spread to protect reputations and avoid consequences. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no family ever has to go through what those families went through and continue to go through. I can only imagine how hard that report was to read and the pain that they continue to feel.
The new offence will ensure that when a public official has misled the public, there is accountability. To have committed the offence, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or been reckless as to whether their actions would do so. By reckless, we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. It does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must have known or ought to have known that their act is seriously improper.
It will be for the judge and the jury to determine whether that test has been met, but clause 11(3)(a) sets out minimum conditions that must be present: that the act—
“involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated…in respect of matters of significant concern to the public”.
That will avoid capturing minor instances of lying or misleading on trivial political or private matters. The act must have caused or have the potential to cause harm. Harm, as we have already discussed, is broadly defined, including economic, physical or psychological harm, including distress. The purpose of this is to avoid capturing inconsequential matters, such a Minister lying about where they went to university or competing in a chess tournament or a local government official overstating their council’s performance. Although these sorts of lies should entail professional consequences, we do not think they meet the bar for criminal sanctions. The individual must also have departed significantly from what would have been expected of them in carrying out their functions. This is to ensure that where it may be necessary to mislead someone as part of a person’s job—for example, as part of an undercover police operation—that is not captured.
This clause as introduced does not apply to devolved matters. We have written to all the devolved Governments to request that the offence be extended in their jurisdiction in line with the other provisions on duty of candour, which apply across the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all confirmed their agreement to extend the offence, and we will be extending the offences accordingly. We hope to bring forward amendments on the territorial extent on Report to ensure full coverage for the United Kingdom.
Subsection (4) also excludes any act done for the purposes of journalism. That is to avoid capturing public service broadcasters and those working for them who would otherwise meet the definition of a public official. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting, as we have already discussed.
Subsection (6) includes a reasonable excuse defence, with specific defences for the exercise of functions by the intelligence services and armed forces on active service. That is necessary to make it clear that when officials can prove that they misled the public to protect national security or this country’s defence operations, they are not subject to criminal sanctions. I stress, however, that this will not prevent the successful prosecution of members of the security services or armed forces who mislead the public for any other purposes, such as personal gain or to protect their reputation.
This is a transformative offence that will ensure that when something goes wrong and public officials lie to the public, there are serious consequences. It will act as a powerful deterrent against the sorts of state cover-ups that we have sadly see all too often.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked me about offences which potentially attract two or more years in prison. I will write to him on that and come back on the specifics, as well as on his question about the Attorney General. With that, I commend clause 11 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Offences under Part 2: related provision
Dr Mullan
Despite not relating directly to the Bill, the matter of pensions has come up in Committee a couple of times. We do need to explore that, because there are many situations where people walk off into the sunset. It seems to me that the one lever we still have over people is their pensions. Have the Government considered how such a provision might be used in the future? The Opposition will be looking at it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public.
The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention. To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion.
Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, they are indeed.
Schedule 3 works alongside clauses 5 and 11 to make some additional provisions about the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. Paragraph 1 provides that an offence may be committed outside the UK only if the person who committed the offence is a UK national, an individual who habitually resides within the UK, or a body incorporated in the UK. In practice, that means that UK civil servants working abroad are captured, but country-based staff employed by UK embassies, who perform a range of predominantly administrative or maintenance roles are not. These are local staff subject to local laws and regulations instead and their exclusion is consistent with other precedents.
Paragraph 2 provides that consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is required before proceedings for the breach of duty of candour offence may be brought forward. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured on that point. The same consent is required in England and Wales for proceedings for the offence of misleading the public, which as I just said, currently only applies in England and Wales, but we are making provisions to apply it to the UK as a whole.
Paragraph 3 makes it clear that where a body commits an offence and a relevant person, for example a director, manager or partner, consented or connived, both the individual and the body are liable. Finally, paragraph 4 provides that where an offence relates to unincorporated bodies, proceedings must be brought against the name of the body.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will speak to each of the clauses in turn. Clause 12 will introduce the first of two new statutory offences to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. In its 2020 report, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence should be abolished and replaced with two new offences that broadly replicate the coverage of the common law offence. In acting on those recommendations, the Government do not intend to change significantly the type of conduct the criminal law will capture. Like the common law offence, the new offences are intended to capture only wrongdoing at the most serious level.
The clause establishes the new offence of seriously improper acts, and is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful misconduct under the common law offence. The seriously improper acts offence is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person, or to cause detriment to someone else. They must know or ought to have known that any reasonable person would regard their act as seriously improper.
The offence can capture a wide range of conduct. “Using” an office can include both acts and omissions. “Benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment including, but not limited to, financial gain or loss, protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, and benefits or detriments of a physical or sexual nature, whether temporary or permanent. When we talk about protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, we intend to capture serious situations where someone uses their office in the way that we associate with the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster: the manipulation of evidence in order to protect the reputation of a person, including an organisation, or the spreading of allegations about other people, designed to damage their reputation.
The clause is about not the usual back and forth of everyday politics, but severe abuses of power that undermine the very basis of public service. An act is seriously improper if a reasonable person would consider it so. There is a list of factors that the jury must consider to make that determination, including the extent to which the act involved an intention to mislead or be dishonest by withholding, covering up or misusing information. A defence is available if the person can show that they had a reasonable excuse for their action—for example, a public office holder has to disregard one fraudulent benefits claim to uncover a more serious, larger scale benefits fraud. The offence is indictable and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. That puts it on par with similar statutory offences, such as bribery and fraud.
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence. That is to safeguard against the risk of spurious claims against public officials, including politicians. We have already heard examples of that. It will ensure that only cases that are serious in nature and justify criminalisation are prosecuted. It does not require the personal consent of the director—consent can be delegated—so it should not cause any undue administrative burden.
The clause will ensure that serious misconduct and corrupt behaviour by those in public office will continue to result in criminal sanctions, and that those who abuse positions of public trust are held to account for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 13 establishes the new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful neglect of duty under the common law offence. The new offence is committed when a person who holds public office either causes or creates significant risk of causing someone else to suffer critical harm, in breach of a duty to prevent other people from suffering such harm. They must know that they are under such a duty, and their act must fall far below what could reasonably have been expected of them in the circumstances. The offence requires that the person be under a duty to prevent critical harm that arises by virtue of the public office that they hold. That means that the offence can be committed only by public office holders whose roles inherently involve a duty to prevent critical harm—for example, service personnel, firefighters and the police. It does not apply to public office holders whose roles do not put them under a duty to protect the public from critical harm.
The offence is made out only if the public official knows or ought to know that they are subject to that duty. The breach of duty must cause either critical harm or a significant risk of that harm materialising. It will not capture cases where a negligible or insignificant risk of harm is caused. The breach of duty must also have been intentional or reckless. These are both very high criminal thresholds. To act recklessly means to proceed in full awareness of the potential outcome and in circumstances where it is unreasonable to take the risk.
Only the most serious breaches of duty are captured by the offence. The requirement that the act must fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances ensures that minor or honest mistakes and legitimate but risky operational decisions made in challenging circumstances will not be captured. For example, a law enforcement officer having to decide in the moment whether to take a particular risky operational decision would be caught by the offence only if they intentionally recklessly breach the duty, their act falls far below the standards reasonably expected of them in those circumstances, and they have no reasonable excuse for their actions.
The offence will be triable on indictment only and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. That is commensurate with other offences where a failure of duty leads to serious or critical consequences, such as gross negligence manslaughter. As with the offence in clause 12, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence in clause 13. That is to guard against the risk of spurious claims being made against public officials in this position and to ensure that only the most serious cases are prosecuted.
Clause 14 clarifies the territorial application of the new offences in clauses 12 and 13. It makes clear that a public office holder can commit the seriously improper acts or breach of duty offences by their actions either within England and Wales, or in other UK territories such as Scotland or Northern Ireland. The offences in clauses 12 and 13 may also be committed by acts done outside the United Kingdom provided that, at the time of the act, the public office holder is either a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales. The clause ensures conduct like this could be caught by the new offences.
Dr Mullan
I want to make some brief points. I welcome the maximum sentences, which are clearer and in a more natural range, and there is not the uncertainty that I think we still have with the misleading the public offence.
I want to ask the Minister about the role of MPs, however, because she will know that our privilege to speak in the Chamber, including to make allegations of defamation, is unfettered. We can say things that do damage people’s reputations and that cause all sorts of issues, but we are immune from civil procedure. I am not sure how the common law has dealt with equivalent sorts of scenarios, but I can imagine an MP trashing the reputation of a business and that business going under, causing huge harm to an individual who then feels as though they should be able to have a say through this route.
I think we all agree that, although it can be abused, that privilege is really important to the operation of our democracy. Even if not now—the Minister may not have considered this before—it would be helpful to have a written note on the Department’s view about the potential misuse of that privilege to say whatever we want in Parliament, without restriction.
Tessa Munt
I previously asked for some clarity on coroners. I accept the position on His Majesty’s chief coroner, and the Minister confirmed about His Majesty’s area coroner. I presume senior coroners are also included in that remit, but I want to be very clear, because they are the people who very often see exactly what is happening on the ground.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Holders of public office
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient consider:
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Schedule 4.
Alex Davies-Jones
All the Government amendments relate to our measures on the offences of misconduct in public office. Government amendment 11 adds members of the Parole Board to schedule 4 to the Bill, which sets out the list of those who are considered public office holders for the purposes of the new statutory offences in part 3 of the Bill: seriously improper acts and the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. The amendment is not being made because there has been a change in policy; rather we have determined that making explicit reference to the Parole Board is a clearer approach than relying on paragraph 21 of the schedule to capture this body. As the offences currently extend to England and Wales only, the reference added to the schedule is only to the parole board that operates in that jurisdiction.
Government amendment 12 ensures that all those carrying out the judicial functions of the coroner are included in schedule 4, regardless of how they are appointed. A deputy chief coroner can be appointed in two ways: those qualified by being a High Court or circuit judge are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and those qualified by being a senior coroner are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The amendment makes it clear that we intend to capture both. It is not a policy change, merely a drafting refinement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 17 stand part.
Schedule 5.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 16 abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which our new statutory offences will replace. It also sets out arrangements for the transition to the new offences, ensuring that the common law offence will continue to apply to any acts done, or begun, before its abolition. The clause also makes it clear that we are not affecting other offences, or the civil tort of misfeasance in public office.
Clause 17 and schedule 5 amend existing legislation to reflect the abolition of the common law offence and the introduction of the new statutory offences. Schedule 5 sets out the specific—and minor—changes to three pieces of existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 18
Parity etc at inquiries and investigations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 6.
New clause 5—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries—
“(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to—
(a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1);
(b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1).
(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 18 and schedule 6 represent a milestone moment in addressing the disparity in power often faced by bereaved families and other affected persons in the inquest and inquiry system. They provide for non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the widest expansion of legal aid in a generation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Clause 18(e) provides for non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved family members at inquests. The Bill is intended to introduce UK-wide legislation. I understand that the Minister has engaged in positive talks with the Scottish Government over a number of months because of the devolved nature of Scottish legal aid at fatal accident inquiries. Are we any further forward with those talks? Will the Scottish people enjoy the same access to legal aid as the rest of the UK?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have a strong and positive working relationship with the Scottish Government and all the devolved Governments about the Bill. The Scottish Government have written to ask us to extend the provision to Scotland. We are working with our colleagues in Holyrood and across the UK to see how we can best apply that. I will happily update my hon. Friend on those discussions, which are positive and ongoing.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid go further, setting out a common framework of obligations and accountability for public authorities and their legal teams when they participate at public inquiries and coroner investigations. I will now get into the detail. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 6 impose a common framework of obligations on public authorities and their legal teams in respect of their participation across statutory public inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries and coroner investigations. The schedule inserts proposed new section 34A into the Inquiries Act 2005 and amends section 42 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that guidance may be issued by the Lord Chancellor to set out the principles that should guide the conduct of public authorities in respect of public inquiries and coroner investigations.
Schedule 6 inserts proposed new section 34B into the 2005 Act and proposed new section 42A into the 2009 Act to place a public authority that is a core participant at an inquiry, or an interested person at an inquest, under a duty to engage legal representatives to act for the authority only if, and in so far as—this is important—it is necessary and proportionate, and to take steps to ensure that those representatives conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance from the Lord Chancellor. In our evidence, we heard how bereaved families feel at an inquest when they turn up with their legal aid-appointed person—or are sometimes not even given a legal aid-appointed person—and the public authority has an army of barristers. This measure seeks to curtail that and to ensure equal representation and parity of arms.
The schedule amends section 41 of the 2005 Act and section 43 of the 2009 Act to make provision for an “overriding objective” to be created in an inquiry or inquest. In particular, that may include objectives for, or in connection with, ensuring that relevant affected persons are able to participate fully and effectively, maintaining the inquisitorial nature of proceedings, and that they are given sufficient information about proceedings.
The schedule also inserts proposed new section 34C into the 2005 Act and amends schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to create a power for an inquiry chair or coroner to raise concerns and report the matter to the person who has overall responsibility for the management of the public authority—or such other person who has power to take action—as to the conduct of a public authority or its legal representatives. A person to whom the report is made must give the inquiry chair or coroner a written response.
Part 3 of schedule 6 makes further modifications to schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to provide that where a report is made by a coroner, a copy must be sent to the chief coroner. Part 3 also amends section 36 of the 2009 Act to add those reports and their responses to the matters that must be summarised in the chief coroner’s annual report to the Lord Chancellor. It further amends section 43 of the 2009 Act to provide that regulations made under that section may make provision in respect of reports made by coroners in relation to concerns over the conduct of public authorities. Part 2 of schedule 6 makes it clear that changes made to the Inquires Act 2005 by part 1 of the schedule should apply to relevant non-statutory inquiries, albeit with certain modifications as set out in paragraph 2(3).
Part 4 of schedule 6 makes expanded provision for legal aid at inquests. It details a number of amendments to the legislation and regulations underpinning the legal aid system. Those, when taken together, keep applications to open or reopen an inquest in scope of legal aid; set out that, where a public authority is an interested person in the inquest, non-means-tested legal aid for the inquest can be accessed by families; and provide for conditions in relation to advocacy funding.
Part 4 begins with four amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO. The first two amendments are technical and update references to “the Coroners Act 1988” to say “the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”, which has largely repealed and replaced the 1988 Act. The third amendment brings applications under section 13 of the 1988 Act into scope of civil legal services. Section 13 allows bereaved family members to submit a request to open or reopen inquest proceedings to the High Court. The Government recognise the importance of bringing such applications into scope of legal aid, and this amendment to LASPO delivers that. Unlike inquests, section 13 applications are adversarial court proceedings in the High Court. As per determinations for section 13 applications under current ECF—exceptional case funding—legal representation will be provided, rather than legal help and advocacy funding, and applications will be means-tested.
The fourth amendment to LASPO insert a new paragraph into part 3 of schedule 1 to the Act to set out the conditions under which an individual can access funded advocacy services at inquest proceedings. The conditions are that, first, a public authority must be an interested person at the inquest and, secondly, advocacy must not have already been made available to another family member of the deceased in relation to the same inquest or a linked inquest. Whether an inquest is linked—that is, whether it is investigating deaths stemming from the same incident—is a matter for the coroner hearing the case.
Part 4 of schedule 6 then turns to amendments to the supporting regulations. The first set of amendments are to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013. There are three amendments to regulation 5, in particular sub-paragraph (m) and proposed new sub-paragraph (ma). Those sub-paragraphs allow for the financial means test to be disapplied when an individual applies for legal help or advocacy at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. The third amendment at sub-paragraph (n) is a purely technical amendment that facilitates the changes. By disapplying the means test for legal aid at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the changes will truly make a difference for the bereaved. This will be a key turning point in rebalancing the system.
Part 4 of schedule 6 also amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. The amendments ensure that not only legal help, advice and assistance but advocacy is available as an appropriate form of civil legal services at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. They also ensure that legal representation is an appropriate form of civil legal service in an appeal to the High Court to open or reopen an inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The amendments will ensure that the bereaved have access to the appropriate form of legal aid for the proceedings that they are experiencing, ensuring that they are appropriately supported at each stage.
Finally, amendments 14 to 17 are minor technical amendments. They amend a reference in schedule 6 to a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and relocate the position of a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into the same schedule to the 2009 Act. I commend the amendments, and the clause and schedule, to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach.
I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge?
I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial.
Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for those questions. On who will police the spend, it will not be for the coroner to police it; it will be for the public bodies themselves. They will be under an obligation, because they will also be funding the legal aid for the bereaved families, depending on which public authority or arm of government it comes under. If it is health, for example, that Department will fund the legal aid costs of the bereaved families; if it is the Prison Service, the funding will come from the Ministry of Justice; if it is police, it will be the Home Office, and so on.
Alex Davies-Jones
No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is to encourage good behaviour. It is to encourage public authorities to not come armed with many barristers, and to discourage the David and Goliath story that we have heard far too many times.
On the shadow Minister’s point about individuals within a public authority potentially not being represented, that is not something that we want to curtail. For example, a frontline healthcare worker could have representation via their union and the public authority could have representation. This is about making sure that the family has adequate legal representation too. I will come back to his other points after I take another intervention.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister feel that this provision might actually lead to some clarity about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on defending themselves and their position, and the actions that they may have taken? It is almost impossible to get them to cough up. They just say, “Oh, well, it’s business as usual—that’s what we always do.” I am hoping that this measure will give clarity.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is bang on the money, literally. I cannot tell her how frustrating it has been as a Minister trying to figure out a way forward on this—trying to figure out the cost to the public purse and the taxpayer—when we do not have that data. This will enable us to have the data on exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and Government Departments on legal aid.
This is taxpayers’ money. We heard evidence from the bereaved families that one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for them was that they as taxpayers were funding the legal support for the public authorities that were accused of having a hand in the death of their loved one. That is totally perverse and unacceptable.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that point. We have put new powers in the Bill for the coroner to challenge public authorities if they are acting inappropriately. What they bring forward has to be proportionate and reasonable. There are powers on the coroners there. They have to compile a report and complain to the relevant bodies or those individuals with the power to take action against the public authority for not acting in accordance with the guidance set out by the Lord Chancellor or the provisions in the Bill.
Dr Mullan
But that is kind of circular, because it takes us back to the coroners. Are the coroners in a position to do that? It is not something they have to do at the minute. As we heard in evidence, judges do that—it is part and parcel of their work—but it is not part of what coroners do. What are we doing in terms of support, information and guidance, and then monitoring that they actually do it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have a very close working relationship with the chief coroner, as the hon. Member would probably expect given my role. We work together very closely, and we have had significant conversations about how to work together going forward and about the implementation of the Bill, which will be crucial to its effectiveness. It is important to recognise that coroners, although distinct in their nature, are the judiciary. They are independent and they do have relevant expertise in this regard. I will be working closely with the chief coroner on implementation.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member heard what I said about annual reporting, but any experiences of a public authority failing to abide by the coroner’s instructions will have to be put into the annual report that the chief coroner will provide to the Lord Chancellor—all of this has to be captured—and we will not hesitate to name and shame those who are failing to abide by the duties in the Bill.
Seamus Logan
I may be misreading the evidence—if I am, I accept that—but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence given to us by Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller during the Committee’s second sitting, last Thursday afternoon. I came away from that sitting with a very distinct impression that those two witnesses were of the view that the legal aid system might need to be expanded. We find that view from Mr Minnoch, the chief executive of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, at columns 60 and 61. He seemed to suggest that his expectation was that legal aid would be expanded in this context.
Alex Davies-Jones
We are expanding legal aid. The provision of non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at an inquest or inquiry where there is a public authority as an interested person is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.
Seamus Logan
That is fair enough, but the Minister stated earlier that there are no additional resources as a result of the application of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is correct. There is no new money for this; it has to be found out of existing Government Department budgets. This is in order to, as we have debated, figure out exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and by local government departments on legal aid and on their contribution to an inquest or an inquiry. We will be working with the legal aid providers very closely and we will be monitoring this, as I am sure will the Treasury, but that is the determination of this Bill and that is the mechanism by which we will be operating.
Seamus Logan
If I interpret the Minister correctly, what she is saying is that, through the application of the Bill, there may be a need to review the position in due course.
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that we are working very closely on a way forward on the framework for the legal aid mechanism of the Bill. I will happily update Members and the House as we progress on how that will be implemented, and we will be working with providers on that.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, about complex family relationships, we are alive to this issue and are working with organisations and officials to see how we can best approach it. We have made provision in the Bill for one advocate adviser per bereaved family, but we recognise that there are complex family arrangements, so there are provisions in the Bill for other family members or other interested people to make an application under LASPO to access more legal aid. However, we have heard the concerns raised in Committee, and we are looking to see what more we can do to support families.
Tessa Munt
I have had discussions with the Minister about the Bill’s relationship with the families of those who are deceased, and I am rather hopeful that she will consider new clause 5. It has been implied that people who are seriously injured or survivors are included in the Bill, but I would like to be very specific about that particular group. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who are seriously injured but are survivors have equal access to legal support, without means testing, as bereaved families when participating in inquests, inquiries, investigations and independent panels. Many survivors face really complex legal processes when dealing with trauma, and without non-means-tested legal aid they may be unable to engage effectively or have their interests represented. Extending legal aid to that group of people would remove financial barriers, ensure meaningful participation opportunities for them, and help to ensure that inquiries and inquests—in which I have been involved myself—can fully examine the conduct of public bodies and public officials, and promote accountability and justice. Will the Minister please address that?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Member said, her new clause 5 seeks to extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
The Bill’s expansion of legal aid ensures that it is available to bereaved families in an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. It follows that a seriously injured survivor who is also a family member of the deceased will already be able to apply for legal aid under the Bill. Survivors of serious incidents are more likely to have active participation in an inquiry into what has happened more generally than in an inquest, where the coroner is seeking to determine facts around a death. However, injured survivors can apply for legal help and advocacy at inquests via the exceptional case funding scheme. Applicants may be eligible for that where not providing legal services would breach, or risk breaching, the applicant’s rights under the European convention on human rights. Alternatively, survivors may work with family members of the deceased receiving legal aid to contribute to the instruction of legally aided lawyers.
Section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 already gives the chair a specific power to award publicly funded legal representation to individuals or organisations involved in an inquiry, subject to the conditions set out by the sponsoring Minister. In recent inquiries, such as the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the Grenfell inquiry, chairs have used that power to ensure that all core participants are funded where that is fair, necessary and proportionate. It is therefore not necessary to expand the scope of civil legal aid to inquiries.
I also note that new clause 5 raises a significant practical and definitional challenge: it does not set out what constitutes “reasonable grounds for believing” that the matter relates to a public authority’s conduct, which would be necessary in order to make regulations implementing the measure and for operationalisation. It could also draw the scope of legal aid more widely than intended, such as by including the perpetrators of terrorist attacks.
In summary, the new clause is unnecessary in the light of existing routes to access legal help and advocacy. It would duplicate provisions already available for inquiries under the Inquiries Act by introducing legal aid for core participants for the first time, and, in doing so, would introduce complexities about who would fund those legal costs. That could lead to delays and make the scheme harder to operationalise and manage. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills not to move the new clause.
Tessa Munt
I seek a little clarity. The Minister made reference to somebody who is seriously injured. They might be part of the proceedings as a friend of the family of somebody who has died. We have seen fairly recently people being injured in a terrorist attack in which colleagues around them have died. They might have something very specific to add, but they might not be a friend of the family. I want to be really clear whether, if somebody was present and seriously injured, and had something to add, but was a colleague and not a family member, there would be any barrier to them being considered as helpful to the family in an inquest or investigation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that, and I will happily engage with the hon. Lady further to ensure that we have no gaps.
Tessa Munt
I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert
“(d) insert—
‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”.
This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted.
Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 1
Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—
(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.
(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.
(2) The report must assess—
(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.
(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.
(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”—(Ian Byrne.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Seamus Logan
I rise to support the new clause, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. I believe this to be an important proposal. If the new clause is adopted, would it actually result in a saving to the public purse?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate on the new clause, which seeks to provide for a post-legislative review of the duty of candour and to include an assessment of the role of the Independent Public Advocate.
As the Committee knows, Cindy Butts has now started as the first ever standing advocate of the independent public advocate. Hers is an excellent appointment. Sadly, she has already been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack on Heaton Park synagogue. The IPA will bolster the support offer and amplify victims’ voices back to Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have been in direct contact with Cindy to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the delivery of her role and to better understand the experiences of victims.
Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the IPA has the power to produce reports, and has broad discretion on what matters relating to a major incident to include. Such reports may, for example, highlight concerns about a public authority not co-operating or not behaving with candour, or about the cost of what is entailed.
Additionally, the Act requires a statutory review of the independent public advocate’s role and its effectiveness, 18 months after its first deployment. That review period commenced on 3 October, following the attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The resulting report will be laid before Parliament, as required in legislation. It is right to allow the new role sufficient time to bed in. We will keep listening to victims’ experiences and will conduct the review before we consider any further changes. However, I am not taking those off the table—I reaffirm that commitment to the Committee.
The Prime Minister recently commissioned a new ethics and integrity commission to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes of ethics so that they effect meaningful cultural change and ensure that public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and when the Hillsborough law has received Royal Assent, the commission will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies to put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.
Tessa Munt
I would be grateful if the Minister could include me in those discussions, because I am very keen that we get this right.
Alex Davies-Jones
In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that the clauses contain standard provisions around Crown application. They confer powers to make consequential amendments as set out in the Bill’s regulation-making powers, they provide definitions throughout the Bill and they set out its territorial extent. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 22, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—
“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”
This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.
Tessa Munt
The amendment seeks to clarify that the Act should come into force straight away, except for clauses 9, 10 and 18, which require the provision of codes or guidance. I seek purely to ensure that the Hillsborough law comes into force as soon as possible, as families have been waiting so many years for justice.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady and all Committee members for ensuring that our feet are held to the fire on our plans for implementation. We agree that the families have been waiting far too long and deserve implementation as swiftly as possible.
Amendment 41 seeks to amend the commencement provision in clause 25. It would provide that the Bill, with the exceptions of clauses 9, 10 and 18, would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Clauses 9, 10 and 18 would then automatically come into force six months following Royal Assent. As I said, we agree that the families have waited long enough. The public deserve change and renewed confidence in the services that exist to protect and serve them.
Let me be clear: we will bring the measures into force as soon as is reasonably practical. However, we cannot prescribe commencement on the fact of the Bill. That is not the right approach and would create practical difficulties. Ultimately, implementing the legislation without the necessary frameworks and arrangements in place could result in unintended consequences and difficulties that cause further distress and disappointment. By retaining the power to commence regulations, steps can be taken to ensure a smooth transition, so that the provisions achieve their objective without negatively impacting ongoing proceedings.
I reassure the hon. Lady and all Committee members that we are not dragging our feet. We want to implement the Bill as swiftly as possible, and we will do so. We are working at pace to facilitate market readiness to expand legal aid rapidly. We are also working with coroner services to help them to prepare for the effects of an increase in the number of lawyers who will appear at inquests.
In addition, the major increase in demand will mean that we also need to look at making significant changes to the Legal Aid Agency’s operational and digital systems. I remind Members that this comes at a time when the agency is recovering from a major cyber incident, with all digital systems yet to be fully restored. Without sufficient time for the legal aid market and the Legal Aid Agency to prepare, there is a risk that bereaved families will be unable to find legal aid lawyers or to access legal aid funding at inquests, which could be delayed as a consequence. We do not want that. Our priority is to deliver the reforms as soon as possible while ensuring that the system is equipped to provide specialist advice to bereaved families from day one.
None the less, we recognise that the Hillsborough families, along with the wider public, deserve clarity on when the Bill will come into force, which is why, very soon, we will set out a clear plan, including the timelines for implementation and for the commencement of the Bill as a whole. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 25 sets out when the Act will come into force. Part 5 of the Bill, which includes the technical provisions, including on regulation-making powers and territorial extent, will take effect immediately. The other parts of the Bill will come into force on a date specified by the relevant authority in regulations. I reaffirm that we will not delay bringing the Bill into force, and I look forward to updating the House very soon on the planned timeline for its implementation. Clause 26 simply provides the short title of the legislation. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Tessa Munt
I accept the Minister’s assurance that she is going to get her skates on, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I would appreciate the Committee indulging me briefly, because it is customary at this point to say a few brief words to mark the end of Committee deliberations. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, and I pay tribute to all the Members who have served on this really important and powerful Bill Committee. The Bill is better for having been scrutinised by them all, so I thank them.
I thank you, Sir Roger, for keeping us in very good order, especially at times when we all lost where we were. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale, on her birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank the Clerks. I want to say a huge thank you to the brilliant team at the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. That includes, but is not limited to, our officials Nikki Jones, Emily Dunn, Tom Blackburn, Sam Wright, May Wong, Sam Dayan, Georgina Rood, Terry Davies, Jonny Fitzpatrick, Catriona MacDonald, Naomi Sephton, John Smith, James Parker, Rachel Boylin and Rachel Bennion —both my Rachels. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to very soon.
The Chair
That was, of course, all strictly out of order and not a matter for the Chair. [Laughter.] While we are out of order, I add my thanks, on the Committee’s behalf, to the Officers of the House, without whom we could not do this job at all.
Exceptionally, I would like to say something else. This has been a highly sensitive and at times difficult piece of legislation to put through. It affects people whose lives are still affected many years after events. I hugely appreciate, and I know that Mr Dowd appreciates, the manner in which you have conducted yourselves. It has been exemplary. Thank you very much indeed.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Alex Davies-Jones ExcerptsThursday 4th December 2025
(10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 December 2025 - (4 Dec 2025)
Ian Byrne
Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts.
The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation.
The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection.
The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent.
Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused, or had the potential to cause harm will achieve that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why.
The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now. That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure in mind where, at a minimum, potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm.
The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases. The harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill.
The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. Hillsborough families spoke of the importance of individual accountability, and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.
Alex Davies-Jones
On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play.
Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.
Seamus Logan
Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them.
It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity.
In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.
Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger.
As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false.
However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level.
It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation.
Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that action. That is why we think a tighter safeguard should be required.
It is not in the amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister about what thought has been given to whether prosecution should be subject to the Attorney General’s permission. Forgive me: I do not know if that is already part of the legislation; I do not think it is, but the Minister will know. For example, when it comes to public order offences—another potentially contentious area—we ask the Attorney General to give permission for prosecution to serve as a safeguard against the inappropriate use of measures.
My final, more general point about clause 11, which we touched on earlier, is about the maximum sentence of two years. What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether there have been any common law versions of a prosecution for this sort of thing in which someone was given a sentence of more than two years? Are the Government sure that this is not unnecessarily constrained compared with the current common law position, which is unlimited? I appreciate that the offences in question are normally more to do with misconduct rather than misleading, but it would still be helpful to get that reassurance.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. We agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind the amendment, and I can assure him that the Bill achieves that intent. Schedule 3 makes further provision regarding clause 5 and clause 11 offences. Paragraph 2(2) sets out that,
“Proceedings for an offence under section 11 may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
With that clarification, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment. Hopefully, I can answer some of his other queries as we move through the debate.
Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, which is designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough, where officials intentionally spread a false narrative to protect their reputation and caused harm as a result. That, as the shadow Minister rightly states, is punishable by up to two years in prison. We all know the harm that caused and how, three decades on, families are still fighting for justice and accountability for what the spreading of that narrative did. The Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Tuesday was clear: a lie was told; a false narrative was spread to protect reputations and avoid consequences. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no family ever has to go through what those families went through and continue to go through. I can only imagine how hard that report was to read and the pain that they continue to feel.
The new offence will ensure that when a public official has misled the public, there is accountability. To have committed the offence, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or been reckless as to whether their actions would do so. By reckless, we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. It does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must have known or ought to have known that their act is seriously improper.
It will be for the judge and the jury to determine whether that test has been met, but clause 11(3)(a) sets out minimum conditions that must be present: that the act—
“involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated…in respect of matters of significant concern to the public”.
That will avoid capturing minor instances of lying or misleading on trivial political or private matters. The act must have caused or have the potential to cause harm. Harm, as we have already discussed, is broadly defined, including economic, physical or psychological harm, including distress. The purpose of this is to avoid capturing inconsequential matters, such a Minister lying about where they went to university or competing in a chess tournament or a local government official overstating their council’s performance. Although these sorts of lies should entail professional consequences, we do not think they meet the bar for criminal sanctions. The individual must also have departed significantly from what would have been expected of them in carrying out their functions. This is to ensure that where it may be necessary to mislead someone as part of a person’s job—for example, as part of an undercover police operation—that is not captured.
This clause as introduced does not apply to devolved matters. We have written to all the devolved Governments to request that the offence be extended in their jurisdiction in line with the other provisions on duty of candour, which apply across the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all confirmed their agreement to extend the offence, and we will be extending the offences accordingly. We hope to bring forward amendments on the territorial extent on Report to ensure full coverage for the United Kingdom.
Subsection (4) also excludes any act done for the purposes of journalism. That is to avoid capturing public service broadcasters and those working for them who would otherwise meet the definition of a public official. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting, as we have already discussed.
Subsection (6) includes a reasonable excuse defence, with specific defences for the exercise of functions by the intelligence services and armed forces on active service. That is necessary to make it clear that when officials can prove that they misled the public to protect national security or this country’s defence operations, they are not subject to criminal sanctions. I stress, however, that this will not prevent the successful prosecution of members of the security services or armed forces who mislead the public for any other purposes, such as personal gain or to protect their reputation.
This is a transformative offence that will ensure that when something goes wrong and public officials lie to the public, there are serious consequences. It will act as a powerful deterrent against the sorts of state cover-ups that we have sadly see all too often.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked me about offences which potentially attract two or more years in prison. I will write to him on that and come back on the specifics, as well as on his question about the Attorney General. With that, I commend clause 11 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Offences under Part 2: related provision
Dr Mullan
Despite not relating directly to the Bill, the matter of pensions has come up in Committee a couple of times. We do need to explore that, because there are many situations where people walk off into the sunset. It seems to me that the one lever we still have over people is their pensions. Have the Government considered how such a provision might be used in the future? The Opposition will be looking at it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public.
The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention. To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion.
Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, they are indeed.
Schedule 3 works alongside clauses 5 and 11 to make some additional provisions about the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. Paragraph 1 provides that an offence may be committed outside the UK only if the person who committed the offence is a UK national, an individual who habitually resides within the UK, or a body incorporated in the UK. In practice, that means that UK civil servants working abroad are captured, but country-based staff employed by UK embassies, who perform a range of predominantly administrative or maintenance roles are not. These are local staff subject to local laws and regulations instead and their exclusion is consistent with other precedents.
Paragraph 2 provides that consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is required before proceedings for the breach of duty of candour offence may be brought forward. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured on that point. The same consent is required in England and Wales for proceedings for the offence of misleading the public, which as I just said, currently only applies in England and Wales, but we are making provisions to apply it to the UK as a whole.
Paragraph 3 makes it clear that where a body commits an offence and a relevant person, for example a director, manager or partner, consented or connived, both the individual and the body are liable. Finally, paragraph 4 provides that where an offence relates to unincorporated bodies, proceedings must be brought against the name of the body.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will speak to each of the clauses in turn. Clause 12 will introduce the first of two new statutory offences to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. In its 2020 report, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence should be abolished and replaced with two new offences that broadly replicate the coverage of the common law offence. In acting on those recommendations, the Government do not intend to change significantly the type of conduct the criminal law will capture. Like the common law offence, the new offences are intended to capture only wrongdoing at the most serious level.
The clause establishes the new offence of seriously improper acts, and is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful misconduct under the common law offence. The seriously improper acts offence is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person, or to cause detriment to someone else. They must know or ought to have known that any reasonable person would regard their act as seriously improper.
The offence can capture a wide range of conduct. “Using” an office can include both acts and omissions. “Benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment including, but not limited to, financial gain or loss, protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, and benefits or detriments of a physical or sexual nature, whether temporary or permanent. When we talk about protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, we intend to capture serious situations where someone uses their office in the way that we associate with the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster: the manipulation of evidence in order to protect the reputation of a person, including an organisation, or the spreading of allegations about other people, designed to damage their reputation.
The clause is about not the usual back and forth of everyday politics, but severe abuses of power that undermine the very basis of public service. An act is seriously improper if a reasonable person would consider it so. There is a list of factors that the jury must consider to make that determination, including the extent to which the act involved an intention to mislead or be dishonest by withholding, covering up or misusing information. A defence is available if the person can show that they had a reasonable excuse for their action—for example, a public office holder has to disregard one fraudulent benefits claim to uncover a more serious, larger scale benefits fraud. The offence is indictable and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. That puts it on par with similar statutory offences, such as bribery and fraud.
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence. That is to safeguard against the risk of spurious claims against public officials, including politicians. We have already heard examples of that. It will ensure that only cases that are serious in nature and justify criminalisation are prosecuted. It does not require the personal consent of the director—consent can be delegated—so it should not cause any undue administrative burden.
The clause will ensure that serious misconduct and corrupt behaviour by those in public office will continue to result in criminal sanctions, and that those who abuse positions of public trust are held to account for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 13 establishes the new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful neglect of duty under the common law offence. The new offence is committed when a person who holds public office either causes or creates significant risk of causing someone else to suffer critical harm, in breach of a duty to prevent other people from suffering such harm. They must know that they are under such a duty, and their act must fall far below what could reasonably have been expected of them in the circumstances. The offence requires that the person be under a duty to prevent critical harm that arises by virtue of the public office that they hold. That means that the offence can be committed only by public office holders whose roles inherently involve a duty to prevent critical harm—for example, service personnel, firefighters and the police. It does not apply to public office holders whose roles do not put them under a duty to protect the public from critical harm.
The offence is made out only if the public official knows or ought to know that they are subject to that duty. The breach of duty must cause either critical harm or a significant risk of that harm materialising. It will not capture cases where a negligible or insignificant risk of harm is caused. The breach of duty must also have been intentional or reckless. These are both very high criminal thresholds. To act recklessly means to proceed in full awareness of the potential outcome and in circumstances where it is unreasonable to take the risk.
Only the most serious breaches of duty are captured by the offence. The requirement that the act must fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances ensures that minor or honest mistakes and legitimate but risky operational decisions made in challenging circumstances will not be captured. For example, a law enforcement officer having to decide in the moment whether to take a particular risky operational decision would be caught by the offence only if they intentionally recklessly breach the duty, their act falls far below the standards reasonably expected of them in those circumstances, and they have no reasonable excuse for their actions.
The offence will be triable on indictment only and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. That is commensurate with other offences where a failure of duty leads to serious or critical consequences, such as gross negligence manslaughter. As with the offence in clause 12, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence in clause 13. That is to guard against the risk of spurious claims being made against public officials in this position and to ensure that only the most serious cases are prosecuted.
Clause 14 clarifies the territorial application of the new offences in clauses 12 and 13. It makes clear that a public office holder can commit the seriously improper acts or breach of duty offences by their actions either within England and Wales, or in other UK territories such as Scotland or Northern Ireland. The offences in clauses 12 and 13 may also be committed by acts done outside the United Kingdom provided that, at the time of the act, the public office holder is either a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales. The clause ensures conduct like this could be caught by the new offences.
Dr Mullan
I want to make some brief points. I welcome the maximum sentences, which are clearer and in a more natural range, and there is not the uncertainty that I think we still have with the misleading the public offence.
I want to ask the Minister about the role of MPs, however, because she will know that our privilege to speak in the Chamber, including to make allegations of defamation, is unfettered. We can say things that do damage people’s reputations and that cause all sorts of issues, but we are immune from civil procedure. I am not sure how the common law has dealt with equivalent sorts of scenarios, but I can imagine an MP trashing the reputation of a business and that business going under, causing huge harm to an individual who then feels as though they should be able to have a say through this route.
I think we all agree that, although it can be abused, that privilege is really important to the operation of our democracy. Even if not now—the Minister may not have considered this before—it would be helpful to have a written note on the Department’s view about the potential misuse of that privilege to say whatever we want in Parliament, without restriction.
Tessa Munt
I previously asked for some clarity on coroners. I accept the position on His Majesty’s chief coroner, and the Minister confirmed about His Majesty’s area coroner. I presume senior coroners are also included in that remit, but I want to be very clear, because they are the people who very often see exactly what is happening on the ground.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Holders of public office
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient consider:
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Schedule 4.
Alex Davies-Jones
All the Government amendments relate to our measures on the offences of misconduct in public office. Government amendment 11 adds members of the Parole Board to schedule 4 to the Bill, which sets out the list of those who are considered public office holders for the purposes of the new statutory offences in part 3 of the Bill: seriously improper acts and the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. The amendment is not being made because there has been a change in policy; rather we have determined that making explicit reference to the Parole Board is a clearer approach than relying on paragraph 21 of the schedule to capture this body. As the offences currently extend to England and Wales only, the reference added to the schedule is only to the parole board that operates in that jurisdiction.
Government amendment 12 ensures that all those carrying out the judicial functions of the coroner are included in schedule 4, regardless of how they are appointed. A deputy chief coroner can be appointed in two ways: those qualified by being a High Court or circuit judge are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and those qualified by being a senior coroner are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The amendment makes it clear that we intend to capture both. It is not a policy change, merely a drafting refinement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 17 stand part.
Schedule 5.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 16 abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which our new statutory offences will replace. It also sets out arrangements for the transition to the new offences, ensuring that the common law offence will continue to apply to any acts done, or begun, before its abolition. The clause also makes it clear that we are not affecting other offences, or the civil tort of misfeasance in public office.
Clause 17 and schedule 5 amend existing legislation to reflect the abolition of the common law offence and the introduction of the new statutory offences. Schedule 5 sets out the specific—and minor—changes to three pieces of existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 18
Parity etc at inquiries and investigations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 6.
New clause 5—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries—
“(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to—
(a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1);
(b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1).
(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 18 and schedule 6 represent a milestone moment in addressing the disparity in power often faced by bereaved families and other affected persons in the inquest and inquiry system. They provide for non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the widest expansion of legal aid in a generation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Clause 18(e) provides for non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved family members at inquests. The Bill is intended to introduce UK-wide legislation. I understand that the Minister has engaged in positive talks with the Scottish Government over a number of months because of the devolved nature of Scottish legal aid at fatal accident inquiries. Are we any further forward with those talks? Will the Scottish people enjoy the same access to legal aid as the rest of the UK?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have a strong and positive working relationship with the Scottish Government and all the devolved Governments about the Bill. The Scottish Government have written to ask us to extend the provision to Scotland. We are working with our colleagues in Holyrood and across the UK to see how we can best apply that. I will happily update my hon. Friend on those discussions, which are positive and ongoing.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid go further, setting out a common framework of obligations and accountability for public authorities and their legal teams when they participate at public inquiries and coroner investigations. I will now get into the detail. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 6 impose a common framework of obligations on public authorities and their legal teams in respect of their participation across statutory public inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries and coroner investigations. The schedule inserts proposed new section 34A into the Inquiries Act 2005 and amends section 42 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that guidance may be issued by the Lord Chancellor to set out the principles that should guide the conduct of public authorities in respect of public inquiries and coroner investigations.
Schedule 6 inserts proposed new section 34B into the 2005 Act and proposed new section 42A into the 2009 Act to place a public authority that is a core participant at an inquiry, or an interested person at an inquest, under a duty to engage legal representatives to act for the authority only if, and in so far as—this is important—it is necessary and proportionate, and to take steps to ensure that those representatives conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance from the Lord Chancellor. In our evidence, we heard how bereaved families feel at an inquest when they turn up with their legal aid-appointed person—or are sometimes not even given a legal aid-appointed person—and the public authority has an army of barristers. This measure seeks to curtail that and to ensure equal representation and parity of arms.
The schedule amends section 41 of the 2005 Act and section 43 of the 2009 Act to make provision for an “overriding objective” to be created in an inquiry or inquest. In particular, that may include objectives for, or in connection with, ensuring that relevant affected persons are able to participate fully and effectively, maintaining the inquisitorial nature of proceedings, and that they are given sufficient information about proceedings.
The schedule also inserts proposed new section 34C into the 2005 Act and amends schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to create a power for an inquiry chair or coroner to raise concerns and report the matter to the person who has overall responsibility for the management of the public authority—or such other person who has power to take action—as to the conduct of a public authority or its legal representatives. A person to whom the report is made must give the inquiry chair or coroner a written response.
Part 3 of schedule 6 makes further modifications to schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to provide that where a report is made by a coroner, a copy must be sent to the chief coroner. Part 3 also amends section 36 of the 2009 Act to add those reports and their responses to the matters that must be summarised in the chief coroner’s annual report to the Lord Chancellor. It further amends section 43 of the 2009 Act to provide that regulations made under that section may make provision in respect of reports made by coroners in relation to concerns over the conduct of public authorities. Part 2 of schedule 6 makes it clear that changes made to the Inquires Act 2005 by part 1 of the schedule should apply to relevant non-statutory inquiries, albeit with certain modifications as set out in paragraph 2(3).
Part 4 of schedule 6 makes expanded provision for legal aid at inquests. It details a number of amendments to the legislation and regulations underpinning the legal aid system. Those, when taken together, keep applications to open or reopen an inquest in scope of legal aid; set out that, where a public authority is an interested person in the inquest, non-means-tested legal aid for the inquest can be accessed by families; and provide for conditions in relation to advocacy funding.
Part 4 begins with four amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO. The first two amendments are technical and update references to “the Coroners Act 1988” to say “the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”, which has largely repealed and replaced the 1988 Act. The third amendment brings applications under section 13 of the 1988 Act into scope of civil legal services. Section 13 allows bereaved family members to submit a request to open or reopen inquest proceedings to the High Court. The Government recognise the importance of bringing such applications into scope of legal aid, and this amendment to LASPO delivers that. Unlike inquests, section 13 applications are adversarial court proceedings in the High Court. As per determinations for section 13 applications under current ECF—exceptional case funding—legal representation will be provided, rather than legal help and advocacy funding, and applications will be means-tested.
The fourth amendment to LASPO insert a new paragraph into part 3 of schedule 1 to the Act to set out the conditions under which an individual can access funded advocacy services at inquest proceedings. The conditions are that, first, a public authority must be an interested person at the inquest and, secondly, advocacy must not have already been made available to another family member of the deceased in relation to the same inquest or a linked inquest. Whether an inquest is linked—that is, whether it is investigating deaths stemming from the same incident—is a matter for the coroner hearing the case.
Part 4 of schedule 6 then turns to amendments to the supporting regulations. The first set of amendments are to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013. There are three amendments to regulation 5, in particular sub-paragraph (m) and proposed new sub-paragraph (ma). Those sub-paragraphs allow for the financial means test to be disapplied when an individual applies for legal help or advocacy at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. The third amendment at sub-paragraph (n) is a purely technical amendment that facilitates the changes. By disapplying the means test for legal aid at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the changes will truly make a difference for the bereaved. This will be a key turning point in rebalancing the system.
Part 4 of schedule 6 also amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. The amendments ensure that not only legal help, advice and assistance but advocacy is available as an appropriate form of civil legal services at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. They also ensure that legal representation is an appropriate form of civil legal service in an appeal to the High Court to open or reopen an inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The amendments will ensure that the bereaved have access to the appropriate form of legal aid for the proceedings that they are experiencing, ensuring that they are appropriately supported at each stage.
Finally, amendments 14 to 17 are minor technical amendments. They amend a reference in schedule 6 to a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and relocate the position of a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into the same schedule to the 2009 Act. I commend the amendments, and the clause and schedule, to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach.
I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge?
I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial.
Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for those questions. On who will police the spend, it will not be for the coroner to police it; it will be for the public bodies themselves. They will be under an obligation, because they will also be funding the legal aid for the bereaved families, depending on which public authority or arm of government it comes under. If it is health, for example, that Department will fund the legal aid costs of the bereaved families; if it is the Prison Service, the funding will come from the Ministry of Justice; if it is police, it will be the Home Office, and so on.
Alex Davies-Jones
No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is to encourage good behaviour. It is to encourage public authorities to not come armed with many barristers, and to discourage the David and Goliath story that we have heard far too many times.
On the shadow Minister’s point about individuals within a public authority potentially not being represented, that is not something that we want to curtail. For example, a frontline healthcare worker could have representation via their union and the public authority could have representation. This is about making sure that the family has adequate legal representation too. I will come back to his other points after I take another intervention.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister feel that this provision might actually lead to some clarity about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on defending themselves and their position, and the actions that they may have taken? It is almost impossible to get them to cough up. They just say, “Oh, well, it’s business as usual—that’s what we always do.” I am hoping that this measure will give clarity.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is bang on the money, literally. I cannot tell her how frustrating it has been as a Minister trying to figure out a way forward on this—trying to figure out the cost to the public purse and the taxpayer—when we do not have that data. This will enable us to have the data on exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and Government Departments on legal aid.
This is taxpayers’ money. We heard evidence from the bereaved families that one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for them was that they as taxpayers were funding the legal support for the public authorities that were accused of having a hand in the death of their loved one. That is totally perverse and unacceptable.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that point. We have put new powers in the Bill for the coroner to challenge public authorities if they are acting inappropriately. What they bring forward has to be proportionate and reasonable. There are powers on the coroners there. They have to compile a report and complain to the relevant bodies or those individuals with the power to take action against the public authority for not acting in accordance with the guidance set out by the Lord Chancellor or the provisions in the Bill.
Dr Mullan
But that is kind of circular, because it takes us back to the coroners. Are the coroners in a position to do that? It is not something they have to do at the minute. As we heard in evidence, judges do that—it is part and parcel of their work—but it is not part of what coroners do. What are we doing in terms of support, information and guidance, and then monitoring that they actually do it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have a very close working relationship with the chief coroner, as the hon. Member would probably expect given my role. We work together very closely, and we have had significant conversations about how to work together going forward and about the implementation of the Bill, which will be crucial to its effectiveness. It is important to recognise that coroners, although distinct in their nature, are the judiciary. They are independent and they do have relevant expertise in this regard. I will be working closely with the chief coroner on implementation.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member heard what I said about annual reporting, but any experiences of a public authority failing to abide by the coroner’s instructions will have to be put into the annual report that the chief coroner will provide to the Lord Chancellor—all of this has to be captured—and we will not hesitate to name and shame those who are failing to abide by the duties in the Bill.
Seamus Logan
I may be misreading the evidence—if I am, I accept that—but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence given to us by Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller during the Committee’s second sitting, last Thursday afternoon. I came away from that sitting with a very distinct impression that those two witnesses were of the view that the legal aid system might need to be expanded. We find that view from Mr Minnoch, the chief executive of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, at columns 60 and 61. He seemed to suggest that his expectation was that legal aid would be expanded in this context.
Alex Davies-Jones
We are expanding legal aid. The provision of non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at an inquest or inquiry where there is a public authority as an interested person is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.
Seamus Logan
That is fair enough, but the Minister stated earlier that there are no additional resources as a result of the application of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is correct. There is no new money for this; it has to be found out of existing Government Department budgets. This is in order to, as we have debated, figure out exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and by local government departments on legal aid and on their contribution to an inquest or an inquiry. We will be working with the legal aid providers very closely and we will be monitoring this, as I am sure will the Treasury, but that is the determination of this Bill and that is the mechanism by which we will be operating.
Seamus Logan
If I interpret the Minister correctly, what she is saying is that, through the application of the Bill, there may be a need to review the position in due course.
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that we are working very closely on a way forward on the framework for the legal aid mechanism of the Bill. I will happily update Members and the House as we progress on how that will be implemented, and we will be working with providers on that.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, about complex family relationships, we are alive to this issue and are working with organisations and officials to see how we can best approach it. We have made provision in the Bill for one advocate adviser per bereaved family, but we recognise that there are complex family arrangements, so there are provisions in the Bill for other family members or other interested people to make an application under LASPO to access more legal aid. However, we have heard the concerns raised in Committee, and we are looking to see what more we can do to support families.
Tessa Munt
I have had discussions with the Minister about the Bill’s relationship with the families of those who are deceased, and I am rather hopeful that she will consider new clause 5. It has been implied that people who are seriously injured or survivors are included in the Bill, but I would like to be very specific about that particular group. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who are seriously injured but are survivors have equal access to legal support, without means testing, as bereaved families when participating in inquests, inquiries, investigations and independent panels. Many survivors face really complex legal processes when dealing with trauma, and without non-means-tested legal aid they may be unable to engage effectively or have their interests represented. Extending legal aid to that group of people would remove financial barriers, ensure meaningful participation opportunities for them, and help to ensure that inquiries and inquests—in which I have been involved myself—can fully examine the conduct of public bodies and public officials, and promote accountability and justice. Will the Minister please address that?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Member said, her new clause 5 seeks to extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
The Bill’s expansion of legal aid ensures that it is available to bereaved families in an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. It follows that a seriously injured survivor who is also a family member of the deceased will already be able to apply for legal aid under the Bill. Survivors of serious incidents are more likely to have active participation in an inquiry into what has happened more generally than in an inquest, where the coroner is seeking to determine facts around a death. However, injured survivors can apply for legal help and advocacy at inquests via the exceptional case funding scheme. Applicants may be eligible for that where not providing legal services would breach, or risk breaching, the applicant’s rights under the European convention on human rights. Alternatively, survivors may work with family members of the deceased receiving legal aid to contribute to the instruction of legally aided lawyers.
Section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 already gives the chair a specific power to award publicly funded legal representation to individuals or organisations involved in an inquiry, subject to the conditions set out by the sponsoring Minister. In recent inquiries, such as the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the Grenfell inquiry, chairs have used that power to ensure that all core participants are funded where that is fair, necessary and proportionate. It is therefore not necessary to expand the scope of civil legal aid to inquiries.
I also note that new clause 5 raises a significant practical and definitional challenge: it does not set out what constitutes “reasonable grounds for believing” that the matter relates to a public authority’s conduct, which would be necessary in order to make regulations implementing the measure and for operationalisation. It could also draw the scope of legal aid more widely than intended, such as by including the perpetrators of terrorist attacks.
In summary, the new clause is unnecessary in the light of existing routes to access legal help and advocacy. It would duplicate provisions already available for inquiries under the Inquiries Act by introducing legal aid for core participants for the first time, and, in doing so, would introduce complexities about who would fund those legal costs. That could lead to delays and make the scheme harder to operationalise and manage. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills not to move the new clause.
Tessa Munt
I seek a little clarity. The Minister made reference to somebody who is seriously injured. They might be part of the proceedings as a friend of the family of somebody who has died. We have seen fairly recently people being injured in a terrorist attack in which colleagues around them have died. They might have something very specific to add, but they might not be a friend of the family. I want to be really clear whether, if somebody was present and seriously injured, and had something to add, but was a colleague and not a family member, there would be any barrier to them being considered as helpful to the family in an inquest or investigation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that, and I will happily engage with the hon. Lady further to ensure that we have no gaps.
Tessa Munt
I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert
“(d) insert—
‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”.
This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted.
Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 1
Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—
(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.
(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.
(2) The report must assess—
(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.
(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.
(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”—(Ian Byrne.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Seamus Logan
I rise to support the new clause, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. I believe this to be an important proposal. If the new clause is adopted, would it actually result in a saving to the public purse?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate on the new clause, which seeks to provide for a post-legislative review of the duty of candour and to include an assessment of the role of the Independent Public Advocate.
As the Committee knows, Cindy Butts has now started as the first ever standing advocate of the independent public advocate. Hers is an excellent appointment. Sadly, she has already been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack on Heaton Park synagogue. The IPA will bolster the support offer and amplify victims’ voices back to Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have been in direct contact with Cindy to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the delivery of her role and to better understand the experiences of victims.
Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the IPA has the power to produce reports, and has broad discretion on what matters relating to a major incident to include. Such reports may, for example, highlight concerns about a public authority not co-operating or not behaving with candour, or about the cost of what is entailed.
Additionally, the Act requires a statutory review of the independent public advocate’s role and its effectiveness, 18 months after its first deployment. That review period commenced on 3 October, following the attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The resulting report will be laid before Parliament, as required in legislation. It is right to allow the new role sufficient time to bed in. We will keep listening to victims’ experiences and will conduct the review before we consider any further changes. However, I am not taking those off the table—I reaffirm that commitment to the Committee.
The Prime Minister recently commissioned a new ethics and integrity commission to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes of ethics so that they effect meaningful cultural change and ensure that public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and when the Hillsborough law has received Royal Assent, the commission will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies to put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.
Tessa Munt
I would be grateful if the Minister could include me in those discussions, because I am very keen that we get this right.
Alex Davies-Jones
In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that the clauses contain standard provisions around Crown application. They confer powers to make consequential amendments as set out in the Bill’s regulation-making powers, they provide definitions throughout the Bill and they set out its territorial extent. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 22, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—
“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”
This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.
Tessa Munt
The amendment seeks to clarify that the Act should come into force straight away, except for clauses 9, 10 and 18, which require the provision of codes or guidance. I seek purely to ensure that the Hillsborough law comes into force as soon as possible, as families have been waiting so many years for justice.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady and all Committee members for ensuring that our feet are held to the fire on our plans for implementation. We agree that the families have been waiting far too long and deserve implementation as swiftly as possible.
Amendment 41 seeks to amend the commencement provision in clause 25. It would provide that the Bill, with the exceptions of clauses 9, 10 and 18, would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Clauses 9, 10 and 18 would then automatically come into force six months following Royal Assent. As I said, we agree that the families have waited long enough. The public deserve change and renewed confidence in the services that exist to protect and serve them.
Let me be clear: we will bring the measures into force as soon as is reasonably practical. However, we cannot prescribe commencement on the fact of the Bill. That is not the right approach and would create practical difficulties. Ultimately, implementing the legislation without the necessary frameworks and arrangements in place could result in unintended consequences and difficulties that cause further distress and disappointment. By retaining the power to commence regulations, steps can be taken to ensure a smooth transition, so that the provisions achieve their objective without negatively impacting ongoing proceedings.
I reassure the hon. Lady and all Committee members that we are not dragging our feet. We want to implement the Bill as swiftly as possible, and we will do so. We are working at pace to facilitate market readiness to expand legal aid rapidly. We are also working with coroner services to help them to prepare for the effects of an increase in the number of lawyers who will appear at inquests.
In addition, the major increase in demand will mean that we also need to look at making significant changes to the Legal Aid Agency’s operational and digital systems. I remind Members that this comes at a time when the agency is recovering from a major cyber incident, with all digital systems yet to be fully restored. Without sufficient time for the legal aid market and the Legal Aid Agency to prepare, there is a risk that bereaved families will be unable to find legal aid lawyers or to access legal aid funding at inquests, which could be delayed as a consequence. We do not want that. Our priority is to deliver the reforms as soon as possible while ensuring that the system is equipped to provide specialist advice to bereaved families from day one.
None the less, we recognise that the Hillsborough families, along with the wider public, deserve clarity on when the Bill will come into force, which is why, very soon, we will set out a clear plan, including the timelines for implementation and for the commencement of the Bill as a whole. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 25 sets out when the Act will come into force. Part 5 of the Bill, which includes the technical provisions, including on regulation-making powers and territorial extent, will take effect immediately. The other parts of the Bill will come into force on a date specified by the relevant authority in regulations. I reaffirm that we will not delay bringing the Bill into force, and I look forward to updating the House very soon on the planned timeline for its implementation. Clause 26 simply provides the short title of the legislation. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Tessa Munt
I accept the Minister’s assurance that she is going to get her skates on, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I would appreciate the Committee indulging me briefly, because it is customary at this point to say a few brief words to mark the end of Committee deliberations. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, and I pay tribute to all the Members who have served on this really important and powerful Bill Committee. The Bill is better for having been scrutinised by them all, so I thank them.
I thank you, Sir Roger, for keeping us in very good order, especially at times when we all lost where we were. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale, on her birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank the Clerks. I want to say a huge thank you to the brilliant team at the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. That includes, but is not limited to, our officials Nikki Jones, Emily Dunn, Tom Blackburn, Sam Wright, May Wong, Sam Dayan, Georgina Rood, Terry Davies, Jonny Fitzpatrick, Catriona MacDonald, Naomi Sephton, John Smith, James Parker, Rachel Boylin and Rachel Bennion —both my Rachels. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to very soon.
The Chair
That was, of course, all strictly out of order and not a matter for the Chair. [Laughter.] While we are out of order, I add my thanks, on the Committee’s behalf, to the Officers of the House, without whom we could not do this job at all.
Exceptionally, I would like to say something else. This has been a highly sensitive and at times difficult piece of legislation to put through. It affects people whose lives are still affected many years after events. I hugely appreciate, and I know that Mr Dowd appreciates, the manner in which you have conducted yourselves. It has been exemplary. Thank you very much indeed.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Sexual Offence Prosecutions: Use of Evidence
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Today, I am pleased to announce that this Government will be bringing forward legislation to prevent the misuse of evidence in sexual offence prosecutions.
These changes follow a comprehensive report published by the Law Commission entitled “Evidence in sexual offences prosecutions: a final report”. This report specifically considered how myths and misconceptions about sexual violence permeate the trial process and influence jurors’ deliberations. Its recommendations aim to improve the treatment and experience of victims at court, while ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its detailed work on this complex matter.
First, we will create a clear statutory threshold for admitting “victim bad character” evidence. Where a defendant seeks to rely on an allegation that a victim has previously lied about being a victim of a sexual offence, that allegation must have a proper evidential basis before it can be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings. The fact that a previous allegation was not reported, or did not lead to charge or conviction, will not be sufficient to reach this threshold.
Secondly, we will introduce legislation providing a higher admissibility threshold for victims’ compensation claim evidence in trials concerning sexual offences, providing that this evidence cannot be admitted unless it has substantial probative value. The fact that a victim has made a claim, and the outcome of this claim, are not sufficient grounds to insinuate that someone is bringing a case for the purposes of financial gain. This measure recognises that all victims of crime have a right seek compensation, and should not be unfairly stigmatised for doing so.
Thirdly, we will amend the threshold for the admissibility of sexual behaviour evidence. We want to ensure that the legislative threshold is clear, and can be consistently applied. New legislation will continue to provide that SBE should not as a rule be admitted, but if it is to be, it must have substantial probative value or be important explanatory evidence. Legislation will also ask judges to consider factors such as the risk that the evidence relies on myths and misconceptions.
In addition, we know that domestic abuse can take many forms, can escalate within a relationship or can present differently with different victims. Currently, unlike with certain categories of offences, legislation does not specify that domestic abuse convictions of any kind can demonstrate a propensity to commit further domestic abuse offences—especially if the previous offence was not the same type of offence as that which they are currently charged with. It means that, for example, evidence of a previous common assault may not be brought before the jury in a sexual offence case, even if both are occasions of partner abuse. We do not think this is right in the context of domestic abuse. We will ensure that domestic abuse offences of any type can be admitted to demonstrate a propensity for further offending in a domestic abuse context, against any victim—whether that is a conviction of coercive control followed by sexual offending, or physical abuse turned to economic abuse.
Recognising how daunting it can be for victims to give evidence, we will further strengthen the support available at court by bringing forward legislation on the use of special measures. This will allow witnesses to be accompanied by a companion when giving evidence, and will clarify the circumstances in which the court can exclude intimidating individuals from the public gallery or combine special measures, so that witnesses can give their best evidence. Our reforms will also clarify courtroom screens’ role in shielding witnesses from view of the defendant when they give evidence, allow victims to use special measures when reading their victim personal statement and enshrine in law the court’s power to edit pre-recorded evidence so it is suitable for use in proceedings and free from inadmissible or irrelevant material.
I hope that these changes will give victims the confidence that they will be treated fairly in court, while preserving judicial independence and the right to a fair trial.
I would like to thank all of those who have campaigned on these issues over recent months and years. I look forward to bringing these important changes to legislation before the House.
[HCWS1124]
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Alex Davies-Jones ExcerptsTuesday 2nd December 2025
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 December 2025 - (2 Dec 2025)
Ian Byrne
I think the Minister can hear the concern from Members on both sides of the Committee that this will not be as effective if there is no individual responsibility, and if those who have done wrong can hide behind the corporate wall and ride off into the sunset with their full pensions, with no accountability or justice. Once the Minister listens to the evidence, and certainly the response of the families today, hopefully we can reflect on whether we feel this is a loophole that could be utilised by those who are responsible. It is our responsibility in this place to shut that down. I hope the Minister will listen to and reflect on what we have said today, and meet me after this sitting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We talk about focusing minds. The Bill will clearly focus minds, because a chief executive can face criminal prosecution and potentially prison if they are not candid, if they consent or connive with someone not being candid, or if they fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the authority is candid. Those are three different and distinct routes to criminal prosecution that will sharply focus minds. We need to hold senior individuals to account for things that they can actually do. Clearly, they cannot personally verify the accuracy of potentially hundreds of thousands of documents.
The whole Bill is about creating a new culture and accountability. Whenever an individual fails in their duty, they should be held accountable—whoever they are—and that can carry up to two years’ imprisonment. It is a privilege to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, but in this morning’s session, before you were in the Chair, I said that this entire Bill Committee is about listening. It is about listening to the families, campaigners and those who have come before, and considering all the work they have done to get us to this place. It is about listening to them with regard to what it means for the Bill to be a Hillsborough law.
I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby and other Committee members today, and I am committed to meeting him and finding a way forward. If there are genuine concerns regarding command responsibility, and Members feel that we are not going far enough, I am committed to listening and working with my hon. Friend on a way forward.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I am delighted that the Minister is listening; that is helpful. I would be grateful if she could consider my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and me to be part of the discussions with the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. That would save me a great deal of trouble in quoting the questions from the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston in our evidence session last week. I was intending to read out a good deal of the further comments from Hillsborough Law Now and Pete Weatherby in my summing up. I do not know whether the Minister is up for this, but it might be helpful to invite that particular gentleman.
Tessa Munt
I am delighted to hear that he will be part of that discussion, because I think he has a good grip on everything, and it saves me reading the Minister a page and a half of his comments today.
Tessa Munt
I am sure the Minister has seen them, but I was going to quote them none the less. I have mentioned the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I know is an organisation with fewer than 100 people. There we have somebody—regardless of the fact that, I am sure, he is not all over the emails and all the rest of it; the work that his office does with his employees, those who work with him and so on—who took what might be considered an incredibly honourable stance and resigned his position over something that happened in the last week. That is absolutely laudable. He is an illustration of how command is absolutely at the centre of this issue.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree that there should be responsibility and accountability at the top of any organisation. We are not doubting that; that is the intention of the Bill. Does the hon. Lady believe that the head of the OBR should have potentially been subject to criminal sanctions in that instance? Resigning is one thing; going to prison for up to two years is very different.
Tessa Munt
No, but it might be difficult to quantify. There certainly was no danger of anyone losing their life or being very seriously injured, and I presume we would not be looking for whistleblowers in his organisation, because he has taken responsibility. I take the point, but he has done the right thing in that situation. Will the Minister clarify something that I raised earlier: what will happen with people who resign—by resigning, the head of the OBR has avoided any chance of going in front of the Treasury Committee today—and those who have retired? It is clear that people can remove themselves from the framework, currently. Does the Minister have something to say about that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I believe that I stated this earlier, but should an official inquiry or investigation be called, the head of the OBR, who has now resigned, or the head of any organisation—we are speaking in hypotheticals here—who was involved in an inquiry or investigation and had resigned, retired or moved abroad would be compelled to come to give evidence under the duty of candour. They would not be excused.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 5 sets out the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance, as set out in clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill, so that the duty has bite. The offence is intended to provide a powerful deterrent effect to drive culture change. As I set out when covering clause 2, the duty has two stages: first, the requirement for public authorities and officials to make themselves known to an inquiry or investigation if their acts or information may be relevant; secondly, the requirement to provide any assistance as specified in a compliance direction from that inquiry or investigation. There is also a requirement for the public official in charge of the authority to take all reasonable steps to secure that the authority complies with the duty.
Clause 5 provides that an individual or authority
“commits an offence if…they fail to comply with the duty”
In relation to the first stage of the duty, the duty to notify, they must have intended to impede the inquiry or investigation by that failure. As for the second stage, the duty to comply with a compliance direction, they must have either intended to impede the inquiry or investigation or been reckless as to whether they would do so.
The intention and recklessness threshold also applies in relation to any breach of the duty on leaders of authorities that fail to put in measures to secure compliance with the duty by the authority and its officers. We have made this distinction in tests between the two stages because, in relation to the duty to notify, we do not want to criminalise someone for genuinely being unaware of an inquiry or investigation. Clause 5(2) sets out the penalties for those convicted of the offence, either on summary conviction at a magistrates court or on indictment at a Crown court. In the latter, the maximum prison sentence for this offence is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Security and intelligence information
Seamus Logan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We have had an excellent debate on command responsibility, and I am heartened to see a very positive outcome from that discussion.
Clause 6 is separate and distinct because it applies to the intelligence services. We heard evidence about the provisions in clause 6 in the evidence session, as well as at a useful special meeting that some Committee members attended with two heads and a deputy head of the three intelligence services. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the evidence from that special meeting and the evidence session has highlighted that there are potentially some contradictory views. Nevertheless, my problem with clause 6(2)(a) is that it is basically a get-out clause; it allows the head of an intelligence service to opt out of the overall duty of candour where that would, according to the Bill, contravene the Official Secrets Act 1989.
I understand that there are special circumstances regarding the intelligence services, as was ably described to us by Sir Ken McCallum, when he said, “I don’t know who all my agents are, and I am not sure that I know all of their activities.” That is fair enough; one can readily understand why that might be the case. Nevertheless, there should be no overall escape clause for the intelligence services. Having said that, I understand that there will be circumstances in which it is necessary to maintain secrecy about certain aspects of what the intelligence services do.
My amendment would give a role to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a Committee of the House, by requiring the head of an intelligence service, in these specific circumstances, to make a report to the ISC on what the exception is. In even more exceptional circumstances, I understand that the ISC can also communicate with the Prime Minister alone—it has no obligation to do anything else.
I believe that that sensible mechanism would give us confidence, in drafting the Bill, that there is no get-out clause. Critically, it would also restore trust even within our intelligence community on how it operates. We do not need to go back over all the evidence that we heard from an employee of the BBC, for example. I hope the Minister can take on board the thrust of what I am saying in the amendment, and perhaps she can even see fit to endorse it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. I will respond to amendment 21 and the other amendments in turn, before moving to the question that clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman stated, amendment 21 would ensure that when clause 2(3) of the duty applies to the intelligence services, the head of the intelligence service must give the Intelligence and Security Committee a summary of any relevant acts or information. The Government have taken his points on board, and we are actively considering options to be introduced on Report. I commit to continuing to engage with him, other Committee members and external stakeholders to make sure that we find a way forward that is fit for the Bill and fit for protecting national security.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for that. Given she has said that we will see an amendment on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Yes, sorry. In the last evidence session, we discussed a very similar situation when we heard from both Pete Weatherby and Daniel De Simone, one of whom is a KC trying to get to the truth through his work in the courts, and another of whom is a journalist trying to expose the truth, particularly around the Agent X story. We are not looking for a change to the Official Secrets Act or its operation. We simply want the Bill to encompass the security services explicitly.
There is a list of public authorities on the Bill. The security services are not on there, which begs the question, why? I thank the Minister for saying that further work will be done on that and that she will be engaging with all Members across the House before Report. On that basis, we are happy to withdraw the amendments.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the withdrawal of the amendments. We had a discussion earlier about why we have not listed organisations in the Bill. We did not want it to be an exhaustive list and to miss an organisation out unintentionally, which could lead them to think that the Bill does not apply to it. We have been extremely clear that intelligence services are covered by this Bill, including clause 6. I reaffirm that to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 6 sets out that the duties in the Bill apply to the intelligence services, but it requires that proper arrangements and protections are in place to safeguard national security. As subsection (2) states, the obligation in clause 2(3) for a person to notify the inquiry or investigation does not apply to
“a person who works for an intelligence service”,
or where doing so would result in the release of security or intelligence information.
To be clear, inquiries and investigations are able to demand assistance and information from the intelligence services under the obligation in clause 2(4), but appropriate arrangements need to be in place for an inquiry or investigation to receive that sensitive information, as is the norm now. Individuals revealing acts or information outside of those arrangements could be detrimental to national security, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree.
Subsection (3) places a requirement on the heads of the intelligence services to put in place internal arrangements to ensure that those who work for the service comply with the requirements to record any acts or any information that may be relevant to an inquiry or investigation. They must inform the service if they hold such information that is not already available to it. That ensures that the services have all the information they need to discharge their obligations under the duty as an authority. However, as I have already stated, I am committed to working with hon. Members, external stakeholders and the UK intelligence services to make sure that we have as a robust Bill as possible that fulfils the aims, objectives and intentions of us all.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Transitional provision in relation to this Chapter
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause provides that the duty of candour and assistance will apply to inquiries and investigations that are already ongoing at the time of commencement, as well as those that start afterwards. It may be necessary to set out further transitional provisions in the commencement regulations to ensure that ongoing inquiries and investigations can make effective use of the duty and are not delayed or forced to repeat stages by its procedural requirements if they are already far advanced.
Clause 8 sets out the meaning of key terms used in this chapter of the Bill, which deals with the duty of candour and assistance. Specifically, it defines “inquiry” as meaning
“an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005”
and a non-statutory inquiry meaning where
“paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 applies”.
Subsection (1) defines the terms “investigations”, “position statement”, “public official” and “public authority”, and references the appropriate Act or schedule from where the definitions are drawn. Clause 8(2) defines what the individual “in charge” of a public authority means. Clause 8(3) then defines “chief executive” as meaning an
“individual working for the authority who…is responsible under the immediate authority of the board of directors for the general functions of the authority.”
The clause is essential for allowing us and any future readers to interpret the key terms used throughout the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“, or
(c) an inquiry to which paragraph 3A of that Schedule applies (local authority inquiries);”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Expected standards of ethical conduct
Alex Davies-Jones
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. As we all heard last Thursday, true cultural change is a key part of implementing the Hillsborough law, and the professional duty of candour required by clause 9 is at the heart of that. Amendments 46 to 48 admirably seek to strengthen the duties imposed on public authorities to promote ethical conduct and adopt a code of ethical conduct.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, clause 9 places a duty on public authorities to promote and maintain high standards of ethical behaviour and conduct. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the specific sector to which they apply, making them meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use that organisation’s services. While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting these amendments, we believe that our drafting achieves the same purpose as the proposed amendments and is sufficiently clear and robust.
Amendment 49 seeks to require public authorities to consult with recognised trade unions on the creation and maintenance of a code of ethics. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of trade union engagement. I am a proud trade unionist myself—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to the unions that I am a member of. I agree that if a code of ethics is to be truly successful, it is important that those working for the authority and their representatives, including trade unions, should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its development.
However, given the complexity and diversity of arrangements across the public sector, the Government’s view is that it would not be advisable to prescribe standard procedural arrangements for all public authorities in this Bill. Many organisations already have an existing code of conduct or a code of ethics. These exist in different forms and may have different underpinnings and links to other organisational governance arrangements. For example, the civil service code forms part of civil service contracts, and the code of ethics in policing is produced by the College of Policing, which does not directly employ individual officers.
Adapting and adopting a code of ethics will require different processes of development, engagement and consultation for each organisation and sector. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach, nor should it be. Public sector employees and employers will have existing arrangements and consultation with trade unions. Creating a specific requirement in the Bill could create confusion and usurp the existing processes and relationship arrangements between public authorities and their trade unions. I am keen to work with my hon. Friend to consider how we can encourage employees and their representatives to be engaged in the processes of developing the codes. In fact, we are already in discussions with trade unions on how we can best include them in the process through consultation and guidance to ensure that we have the most robust practices. With those assurances, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Morrison
We spoke this morning about the issues dealt with by amendment 43, but to clarify, WhatsApp messages formed a big part of the evidence in the recent covid inquiry—it seemed to be government by WhatsApp at the time—and yet many of them seem to have disappeared. The amendment would provide an extra way of ensuring that public authorities and those responsible are keeping proper records and preventing that from happening again.
New clause 3 would prevent the deliberate concealment of evidence that could obstruct investigations, hinder fact-finding and undermine public trust. I would like the Committee to consider the element of public trust here. How people perceive what happens in this place, and in the organisations and public authorities that surround us and the power structures that are there, is vital to the legitimacy that we have and that those public authorities also have. By criminalising such conduct, the clause would reinforce the obligation on public authorities and officials to maintain and safeguard records, ensuring that inquiries and inquests can access all the information necessary to understand what happened and hold the responsible parties to account. This is a way to make sure that the truth can be found in those areas and hopefully ensure that WhatsApp messages are not deleted in future.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. Amendment 43 would, as he states, make authorities set expectations for staff on how to retain and disclose their digital records in accordance with the obligations under the duty of candour. Proper record keeping is important to ensure accountability and propriety in decisions made by public authorities. That applies where records are on paper or held digitally— for example, in a WhatsApp group—and it is important that organisations have policies and processes in place to manage these effectively.
However, the Government’s view is that the code of ethical conduct is not the correct vehicle for establishing those processes. The Public Records Act 1958 already places certain requirements on public authorities. Under that Act, the Keeper of Public Records issues guidance to supervise and guide the selection of historic records —including digital records—worthy of permanent preservation.
Disclosure to inquiries and inquests will require the detailed consideration of various factors, including the fact that the authority’s legal obligations include the duty of candour and assistance, the protection of personal or sensitive information, and the relevance to the inquiry’s terms of reference or the inquest. Authorities may also require specific legal advice. Separate and bespoke policies will therefore be required. The professional duty of candour established under clause 9 is intended to focus on what candour means for each public official going about their business in their day-to-day role. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Cheadle withdraws the amendment.
On the point about whether WhatsApp messages are covered, and specifically disappearing messages or those deleted in the course of work, as they sometimes are, the duty of candour and assistance requires all public officials and authorities to provide all relevant information. If a public official was part of a WhatsApp chat in which relevant information was exchanged, they would be obliged to inform the chair of that fact, and if disappearing messages had gone or the chats had been deleted, they would have to provide an account of what was discussed, to the best of their recollection, even if the messages had since been deleted or vanished.
Tessa Munt
I know that we dealt with this matter earlier, but I again put on the record my concerns about subcontractors in tiers 1, 2 and 3, who often hold key information. We need to find some way to make sure that they are within the scope of this provision.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that concern, which I share, and we are looking at that in terms of the passage of the Bill. As I have stated, the duty would be on the public authority, official or subcontractor to disclose all the information to the chair of the inquiry or investigation.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Perhaps the point the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills was making was that the Minister referred to a separate piece of legislation, the Public Records Act 1958, and I am not sure that that legislation includes things like contractors and subcontractors.
Alex Davies-Jones
The information provided to the inquiry would be covered and, as per the provisions of this Bill, subcontractors would be caught under the duty of candour and would have to disclose any relevant information, as per the information disclosed in that Act. I hope that clarifies it.
Tessa Munt
How helpful has the existing law been in relation to the covid inquiry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned? I am not sure that has quite got to the base of everything. Does the Minister have any suggestions about improving the Bill to be explicit about what we expect?
Alex Davies-Jones
Again, I totally agree with the policy intention. If the Bill had become an Act when the covid inquiry was under way, might that inquiry have carried things out differently, or provided information in a new way or in a new light? We cannot answer that. All I can say is that the purpose and intention of the Bill is to ensure that any inquiries or investigations seek the whole truth and that all information is disclosed so that we are never put in that position again. That is the intention of the Bill, and we have made sure it is as robust as possible to provide for that.
Maria Eagle
I can understand why Members might feel a certain amount of scepticism about the idea that an obligation to try to remember disappearing messages might be adequate. I do not know how many messages other Committee members send, but I think we have all got into the habit of sending rather a lot. Could there not be an arrangement, either in the code of ethics or in the policies and procedures of organisations, to make sure that people do not use WhatsApp for official business? We could also make sure that whatever chat people do use—it might be an internal arrangement—messages are properly kept and we therefore do not have to rely on dodgy memories of disappearing messages to make sure that messages are preserved for any future inquiry.
Alex Davies-Jones
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point: it is for each individual organisation to determine the policies and procedures for their record keeping. It might be wholly appropriate for one organisation, if it has a small number of employees, to use a WhatsApp group, but we would expect records to be kept appropriately and for employees not to turn on disappearing messages. That would be part of the terms and conditions in the guidance and practices for the employees.
It would be for each different organisation to determine what is right and appropriate. It is not for Government to tell any organisation how to run its business or manage its employees. However, we have set out the bare minimum that is expected: the Bill makes it explicitly clear that records of any information relevant to an inquiry or investigation should be kept, and that such information should be disclosed to the inquiry or investigation if requested.
Seamus Logan
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 9, page 8, line 12, leave out “may” insert “must”.
I am aware that we have debated amendment 48, although perhaps not as fully as I would have liked. In the interests of getting our business done within the time available, I decided not to intervene in that debate. However, I believe that the particular change in amendment 24 is necessary. Where amendment 48 spoke to the duty of candour, amendment 24 speaks to the code of ethics.
There are legal minds in the room that are much better informed and trained on legal definitions than my own, but amendment 24 addresses the need to replace “may” with “must” in the code of ethics, as opposed to the duty of candour. I believe this is important given my experience in the health service, where there is a responsibility on individuals to report child abuse, or where a colleague might clearly be able to see that a surgeon carrying out procedures is repeatedly doing something injurious or harmful. By replacing the word “may” with “must”, we place a responsibility on anyone to blow the whistle on those particular issues.
In my working life I have experience, as might others present, of consultants who suppressed information relating to child abuse. We certainly heard similar evidence about surgeons during our evidence session. Colleagues will be able to think of many such examples, which is why it is important that the amendment replaces “may” with “must”.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. The Government believe it is imperative to have policies and processes in place to enable officials and public servants to speak up when they see that something is wrong. If we are to address the culture change that we have heard about a hundred times, it is important to have that in place. That is why the Bill requires all public authorities to set out how a person can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code, and the process for making a protected disclosure, also known as whistleblowing.
The amendment would require individuals to take a particular course of action. This risks cutting across established disciplinary and whistleblowing regimes, with potentially significant implications for employees. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working across Government with the Department for Business and Trade on how we reform whistleblowing more generally, and as the Bill progresses we will be looking quite carefully at whistleblowing and protections for individuals. However, we do not think the amendment would have the intended consequences, and it might cause us more issues, so I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw it.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for that response, but I am at a loss to know how the responsibility suggested by the amendment would cut across any existing code of ethical conduct. If the legislation simply stated that the person who works for the authority must take steps if they believe that another person who works for the authority has failed to act in accordance with the code, I fail to see how that would cut across any existing procedures. It would simply make the provision more robust by saying “You must take that step” rather than “You may take that step”. That is what the amendment calls for; perhaps the Minister might like to expand on why she wishes me to withdraw it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily come back to the hon. Gentleman. Say, for example, that someone in the police force believes that a colleague is not acting in accordance with the code of ethics, but that individual may not be privy to the details of an undercover operation that their colleague is aware of and they are cutting across existing provisions in the police force. If that individual had to do as the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment, they could hinder the investigation or cause unintended consequences.
With the Bill, we are saying that there must be a way of reporting. Every public organisation must have that built in but, as we have discussed, a one-size-fits-all approach does not work across all public sector authorities. What will work in the NHS will not work in the police or for probation. This all has to fit the specific authority. Therefore, there has to be a mechanism for reporting, but we are not designating a specific one.
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is helpful. Perhaps when the Minister and I, and others, meet to discuss other matters, we might explore this in more detail. If the Minister is willing to accept that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Seamus Logan
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
I rise to speak to amendment 26, which has some similarities with what the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby just outlined. I am extremely keen to ensure that people are really clear about what they have to do when they wish to report. This relates to clause 9(5)(c) as well.
As has been mentioned, the Employment Rights Act 1996 tends to guide people towards the employment tribunal if something has happened. Currently, if something has gone wrong, that is where people can end up. As I mentioned last week, my understanding is that the employment tribunal has a backlog of 47,000 cases. My sense is that when the Bill comes into effect, which will not be very long, there will be masses more people who find themselves guided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to head for the employment tribunal, which does not seem to be an adequate place for people to deal with their complaints.
The employment tribunal is for those who are considered to be a worker, be that an employee or somebody acting in a voluntary capacity. Amendment 26 would require a public authority’s code of ethical conduct to include information on the person to whom someone can make a protected disclosure—what we know as whistleblowing —and how the person would be protected against detriment. It is incredibly important that the code of ethical conduct sets out clearly how individuals can make a protected disclosure and the protections available to them.
The amendment would strengthen the whistleblowing safeguards by providing staff with clear guidance on the safe reporting of wrongdoing. It should address some of the gaps in protection without creating a specific outside body. I have already spoken to the Minister about the idea of an office of the whistleblower; I understand that is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is really important that whistleblowers can come forward with confidence while remaining within the statutory framework, and that they have somewhere safe to go.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank Members for raising those important points. We discussed whistleblowers and the protections needed for them a lot in the oral evidence sessions. It is essential that if there is wrongdoing in an organisation, those working for the organisation can come forward and raise the alarm, and be confident that they will be protected when doing so.
Through the Bill, public authorities will be required to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct, and their leaders will be held accountable for that. In doing so, leaders must ensure that their authority’s code of ethics contains information about any whistleblowing policies or procedures.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister accept that a huge number of authorities, bodies and organisations may not, whether wittingly or not, recognise somebody as a whistleblower? There is a real danger in people believing that they are whistleblowing and that they will have protection, yet the companies not recording them as whistleblowing incidents. How does the Minister see that working?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next comments. The Bill will ensure that workers who are protected against retaliation by an employer for blowing the whistle about wrongdoing—known formally as making a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996—are more aware of their rights.
We believe that certain elements of the amendments are unnecessary. For example, while we are absolutely sympathetic to its aims, amendment 26 would require employers to provide information on prescribed persons that is already online, on gov.uk. The amendments could also introduce confusion—
Alex Davies-Jones
And that is the very confusion the hon. Lady mentioned. If she lets me finish my point, I will give way.
Amendment 50, for example, may lead some people who work for a public authority, but are not workers, to believe that their disclosure may qualify for whistleblowing protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996. We do not wish to cause that confusion. I point the hon. Lady to our work on whistleblowers across Government, which will of course inform work on the passage of this Bill.
Tessa Munt
I want to mention the huge number of occasions when I dealt with constituents and others, when people have been—I would say—entrapped into signing non-disclosure agreements or NDAs, which mean they feel that they cannot talk to anyone. They even fear talking to their MP. It is not clear to whom they can speak, and part of my desire is to ensure that each authority—I am not saying that the Minister should say what should be disclosed and to whom; this is for every organisation—should have someone identified. They should make public that safe place or safe person to whom anyone can report, be they in or outside the authority—that comes under the next subsection, I accept—as workers or employees. This business of NDAs needs to be sorted out once and for all, because it is pervasive and incredibly destructive.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady will be aware of the work we are doing on NDAs in the Victims and Courts Bill and the Employment Rights Bill. A lot of work is happening across Government on how we can protect individuals who are being forced to sign NDAs or those who feel unable to come forward and whistleblow. That work is being done holistically and is led by the Department for Business and Trade. I am happy to discuss her concerns more broadly in Committee, during the passage of the Bill, and outside the Committee.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to discuss our broader work on this and how we move forward on whistleblowers with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills outside the Committee Room.
Ian Byrne
I am filled with confidence by the Minister’s response on whistleblowers. I know that she will be taking this seriously, because it goes to the heart of changing the culture of organisations that have failed us time and time again. This whistleblowers element is extremely important. I am happy to hear that Minister is up for engaging with us across the Benches to strengthen these provisions, which is desperately needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan
Amendment 25 has already been covered in our discussions about “may” or “must”, and I am happy to take that discussion into further meetings with the Minister.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank both hon. Members for tabling the amendments in this group; I will respond to each in turn.
First, amendment 28 would require there to be a standard template for a code of ethics. The Government recognise the importance of supporting public authorities to develop their codes of ethical conduct, and we commit to doing so. Clause 10 confers a power on the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments to issue guidance that authorities will be required to have regard to when drawing up codes for their organisations.
The newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission will in time also have a role in supporting public bodies by making toolkits, best practice and guidance available for public sector bodies. Although we envisage that standard templates will be useful, as I have already said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We wish to retain the flexibility to allow each individual organisation and sector to consider what would work best for them, but support will of course be available for them in doing so.
Amendment 25 would require a public authority to modify its code for specified circumstances or for specified people who work for the authority. I want to reassure Members that clause 9(7) provides for public authorities to specify that their code may apply with modifications in specified circumstances or to people of a specified description who work for the authority.
The intention of clause 9(7) is to enable authorities to reflect different expectations or obligations that apply to different groups of employees—for example, a school’s code of conduct may apply differently to teachers and janitorial staff. It could also reflect different processes that apply in different situations, for example, in an emergency situation compared with everyday business as usual. The Government’s view is that it should be for the authority to determine whether and how it uses that flexibility, noting that it must set out the reasons for doing so—that is important. We do not think that authorities should be required to do so, which is what the effect of amendment 25 would be.
Amendment 23 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate funding is available to public authorities to provide training to their officials on compliance with the code of ethical conduct. I again want to assure hon. and right hon. Members that the Government have an ambitious plan for the implementation of the Bill. The Bill is just one part of the puzzle; it needs to be implemented fully, workably and effectively. It is just part and start of the culture change that we want to see in public sector organisations. The plans will of course include training for public servants, as well as oversight of the codes themselves.
A number of public sector organisations are already working on cultural or leadership programmes, and implementation of the Bill may be undertaken alongside or as part of existing initiatives to ensure that the code is seen as central to driving change in the organisation’s culture on a sustainable basis. The Bill requires public authorities to promote and maintain standards of ethical conduct among those who work for the authority. The duty ensures public authorities will be accountable, while allowing flexibility for the practical arrangements that each authority might put in place. I hope that assures the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, and I am happy to work with him and others on the implementation of the Bill as it goes forward.
Finally, new clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report setting out whether and how public authorities have complied with the duty of assistance and candour. The Government agree that it is essential that the duties in the Bill are properly upheld and enforced. That is why the Government are ensuring independent oversight of implementation of the Bill’s provisions. The Government have committed to commissioning an annual independent assessment report to ensure that public bodies are complaint with the codes of ethics requirement in the Bill. That report will make clear which parts of the public sector are rising to the challenge and which are failing to do so. We will not be afraid to name and shame who is abiding and who is not.
Compliance with the duty of candour and assistance at inquiries and investigations can, sadly, be judged only by the inquiry or investigation itself. They are responsible for monitoring compliance with the legal duty and for taking enforcement action, such as referring the case for criminal proceedings if necessary. I would like to assure all Committee members that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring effective implementation of all the measures in the Bill and to achieving the cultural change that is so desperately needed. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Tessa Munt
I am glad to hear what the Minister has to say. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; if anyone in the public can track through their complaint to something that is published on annual basis—I assume the Minister means annual—that will give people a lot more confidence that this being taken incredibly seriously.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister for her contribution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seamus Logan
In light of the Minister’s clarification, I am happy to withdraw amendment 25. However, with regard to amendment 23, I am still unclear as to what exactly the Minister is saying. Is she indicating that beyond the passage of the Bill there will be further clarifications to public bodies as to what training requirements there might be, and that resources will flow from that?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman—but yes, essentially. We will need to look at how we implement the Bill once it becomes an Act—hopefully it will become an Act—and at the requirements that will come from that. I will happily have those discussions with him and every other public authority on how best we do that. Should other resources be needed, that is something that the Government will consider.
Seamus Logan
Given the proceedings today are a matter of record, I am happy to withdraw amendment 23.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
To ensure that public sector culture changes for the better, clause 9 introduces a new duty on public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain high standards of ethical conduct at all times by people who work for the authority. This means acting in accordance with the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership.
Under the Bill, all public authorities will be required to adopt a code of ethical conduct. This will ensure comprehensive coverage across the public sector. It will not be enough to simply have a code; authorities will be legally required to publish their codes and take active steps to make their staff aware of the code, and the consequences of failing to comply with it.
Clause 9(4) and (5) set out minimum standards that all codes must meet. Each code must establish a professional duty of candour, and an expectation that those working for the authority will act with candour at all times. Professional duties of candour will be tailored to the sectors to which they apply; they will be meaningful to staff and responsive to the needs of those who use an organisation’s services. The code must set out the practical ways in which ethical standards should be upheld and the disciplinary consequences of failing to act in accordance with the code. This will ensure that the code acts as an aspirational document, setting out best practice, but also as an effective deterrent against unethical behaviour.
Ensuring there are routes where individuals can raise concerns about public institutions is essential for ensuring that issues are identified and addressed as early as possible. Clause 9(5) requires an authority’s code to set out: how staff can raise concerns if they think their colleagues are not acting in accordance with the code; how staff can make protected disclosures, including any whistleblowing policies; and a clear process for external complaints about the conduct of the authority or those working for it.
Recognising the diversity of the public sector, the Bill includes some flexibilities. A code can provide for its standards to apply differently in specific circumstances or to specific groups of people, but it must set out reasons for doing so. For example, it may not be appropriate to apply all of the same standards to doctors as to the cleaning staff in an NHS trust. The Bill allows a public authority to adopt a code produced by another body. For example, schools can adopt a code published by the Department for Education, or local authorities can adopt codes from the Local Government Association. This is to ensure consistency across sectors and will minimise the burdens on smaller organisations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Non-statutory inquiries
Ian Byrne
I rise to speak to amendments 55 and 58 to 60, which would strengthen command responsibility. On amendment 55, schedule 2(5) appears to mean that responsibility for the actions of a Government Department is corporate only, and there is an exclusion for civil servants exercising their functions wholly outside the UK. Surely responsibility should lie with the chief executive of the Department, usually the Secretary of State, which I feel that amendment 55 would achieve.
Amendments 59 and 60 would once again strengthen the command responsibility. The purpose of deeming what was done by an office holder as being done by a Department itself is unclear. If those words are simply intended to avoid putting command responsibility on a Minister for the actions of their Department, with respect to the compliance with the duty of candour and assistance, it potentially goes too far.
Schedule 2(3)(6) excludes civil servants from inclusion as public officials if they exercise all their functions outside the UK. I do not see the reason for this exception, and I am seeking some clarification through amendments 59 and 60. I have also tabled amendment 58 for similar reasons to those I have stated for amending schedule 2(5), which would delete sub-paragraphs (3)(d) and (2).
Alex Davies-Jones
I again thank my hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I hope that I will provide him with some clarification and assurances on exactly why we have adopted this approach in our drafting. The provisions that amendment 55 would amend are typical in legislation. They provide that actions legally done by the Crown or the holder of a particular office, such as a Secretary of State, can be attributed to a Government Department.
The definition of a “public official” in schedule 2(3) includes an individual who
“holds office under a public authority”.
By removing the explicit reference to the holder of a particular office, the amended paragraph would actually, and no doubt unintentionally, narrow the scope of what can be attributed to a Government Department. Only actions that are strictly acts of the Crown could then be attributed to a Government Department for the purposes of the duty of candour provisions and associated offence, as well as the misleading the public offence, not those done legally in the name of the Secretary of State. In our view, this would actually weaken the Bill, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 55.
Amendments 58 to 60 seek to apply the duty of candour and assistance, along with the misconduct in public office offences in part 3, to staff employed on local contracts overseas, including consular staff at embassies. My hon. Friend is correct to note that there are two examples of this exclusion in the Bill, one from the definition of “public official” in relation to the duty of candour, and one from the definition of “civil servant” in relation to part 3. They exclude what are known as country-based staff. These are, for example, locally engaged staff who are employed by an embassy or consulate generally to do administrative or support work, such as site maintenance.
While employed by the embassy or equivalent, these individuals are subject to the laws of the country in which they live, and they are supervised by United Kingdom civil servants who are subject to all parts of the Bill. In excluding locally employed staff from the provisions in the Bill, the Bill follows all precedented approaches relating to these staff, such as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. To take a different approach would be a significant and unprecedented change. I hope my hon. Friend understands that clarification and is content not to press amendments 58 to 60 to a vote.
I turn to schedule 2 and clause 10. Many of the Bill’s substantive provisions apply to a public authority or public official. Schedule 2 defines those terms for the purposes of part 2 of the Bill. There are different definitions of “public authority” for different parts of the Bill, and I appreciate that this can be confusing, so I hope to clarify why. Part 2 of the schedule sets out the definitions of “public authority” and “public official” for the purposes of the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. These are broad definitions that are intended to capture anyone, including private companies, who exercises a public function.
Paragraph (2)(4) sets out that there are express reservations for the courts, Parliament and the devolved legislatures, reflecting long-standing constitutional conventions of self-regulation and independence. The north-south bodies established under the Good Friday agreement are also excluded to avoid capturing officials in the Irish Government.
Tessa Munt
In the interests of clarity, will the Minister explain whether the intelligence and security services are now captured by the list in part 2? Will she also explain what happens to regular or reserve forces when they are abroad, when they might be subject to devices such as the court martial? Those are two very specific things.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify both those points, and I assure the hon. Lady that they are captured in this part of the Bill.
“Public official” is defined in schedule 2 as all of those who work for a public authority or hold office under a public authority—including those that the hon. Lady mentioned—and individuals who hold a relevant public office. That is defined to include offices that are established in legislation or by Ministers, where the UK or devolved Government are wholly or mainly constituted by appointment made by the Crown or Ministers, and they exercise functions of a public nature. Former public officials are also included in that—for example, retired civil servants and those who have resigned from the service. There are various exclusions, such as for individuals acting in a judicial capacity, non-executive elected members of a local authority who operate executive arrangements, and those in the private service of the Crown.
Part 3 of the schedule sets out the definition of “public authority” for the provisions on standards of ethical conduct, including the requirement to adopt a code of ethics. That definition of “public authority” is limited to the core public authorities, those commonly understood to be part of the state. The definition includes a list of named public authorities. That includes Government Departments, the devolved Governments, the armed forces, the police, local authorities, NHS bodies, schools, and any bodies that are both established by Ministers of the Crown and are wholly or mainly constituted by public appointments. That is intended to capture the wide range of arm’s length and other public bodies. The definition does, however, include the same exclusions for Parliament, the courts and those north-south bodies that were previously mentioned.
Tessa Munt
I again seek clarity. Are non-executive directors of an NHS trust, for example—who might be party to all sorts of information—within the scope of the Bill? I would also like to check whether school governors—and schools that are academies sometimes use different names, such as “partners”—are also picked up in the list.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that. Those provisions of the Bill contain a power to allow the definition to also be extended by secondary legislation to private companies that exercise specified public functions. That would allow the code of ethics provisions to be extended to specified high-risk public functions by secondary legislation—for example, in privately run prisons.
Finally, I turn to clause 10, which provides that guidance can be issued by the national authority if it wishes to do so, for the purposes of chapter 2, which relates to the standards of ethical conduct. That means that the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments can issue guidance on how public authorities can fulfil their duty to maintain high standards of ethical conduct, including in drafting and adopting their codes of ethical conduct.
Clause 9 sets out minimum standards in law that all codes must legally meet. We have the option to use guidance under clause 10 to set out best practice in each of those areas, encouraging authorities to consider what arrangements they can put in place to ensure that the highest standards of ethical conduct are in place. However, as we have already discussed, given the diversity of the public sector, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and any guidance that is issued will allow each authority to consider how those requirements in the Bill can best be implemented to serve them in a way that best suits them and the needs of their organisations and sectors. All public authorities will be legally required to have regard to the guidance.
UK Ministers will be responsible for guidance for UK and England-only bodies, and the devolved Governments will have powers to issue guidance that relates exclusively to devolved matters. That is to reflect the devolution settlement, and it ensures that the devolved Governments can provide guidance to the public authorities to which they are responsible and—speaking as a Member of Parliament for a devolved area—also that they could potentially also be bilingual, as they would have to be to comply in Wales.
We intend to work closely with our devolved colleagues on the development of any such guidance, and I again put on record my thanks to all the devolved Governments for their collaborative and collegiate approach to working with us on the Bill to ensure that we have a unified approach.