Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

James Asser Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

Q If they are not added, will the Bill be poorer for it? Will you have confidence in the Bill without them?

Charlotte Hennessy: I think they are needed; they make the Bill stronger, and anything that makes the Bill stronger is imperative.

Steve Kelly: We touched on it before—sorry, I am not sure who it was—but there should be more sanctions on the press. Without the press reports, the Hillsborough story would not have been as disastrous for us and would have not taken so long to come to a conclusion.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

Q May I just say that—no disrespect to our other witnesses— you are the most important people that we are going to hear from today? This is the first time I have been able to hear from you directly, and it has meant an awful lot to me, so I appreciate it.

You have expressed your confidence in the Bill, and we want to get it right. Given that you have had to spend four decades of your lives campaigning on this, which is an extraordinary and appalling amount of time to get to this point, if we get this passed and deliver on your confidence, what does that mean for you? Does it mean that you can say, “We have won. We get our lives back. We can do all the family things that this has taken up”? Or does it change your campaigning so that you can support others? You may have not thought about that point. I just want to make sure that we understand, if we get this done for you, and if we get it done right, what it actually means for you. I think it is important that we know.

Steve Kelly: You do think about it every day. We are confident—believe it or not—and we have a lot of hope.

Sue Roberts: We keep having this conversation.

Charlotte Hennessy: We do; it is something that we talk about often.

Sue Roberts: We cannot wait for there to be a Hillsborough law so that we can move on.

Charlotte Hennessy: We know that we are never going to be able to secure criminal prosecutions for what happened to our loved ones—that ship has sailed. The best thing that we can do now is just make sure that nobody ever goes through what we have been through. Yes, that is a conversation that the four of us have very often. Once the Bill is passed in its entirety, I think we will be done.

Margaret Aspinall: I always say that, with Hillsborough, it is not all negativity; there is positivity as well. The positivity is that we have changed things in the way that supporters are treated. They were treated appallingly in the ’70s and the ’80s—I think back to my own husband—but we have changed things in that way. People now have a choice of either standing or sitting, with about a 99% certainty that they will go home.

I think the most important positive thing that we can get out of Hillsborough is having a Hillsborough law for the people. It would be a wonderful legacy for the 97, and this is for them as well. That is most important thing: that they have left a legacy and changed a corrupt system that was so wrong. I think our job will be done then.

I was a relatively young woman when I lost my son. I am a very old lady now—I am not going to tell you all how old I am, by the way, but I have had a bus pass for quite a few years. For most of my life, I have not seen my children grow up, or my grandchildren growing up —one is engaged now. It is so wrong, and nobody should have to face that and to fight and campaign for truth, for justice—or for accountability; I do not think there was any such word as “justice”.

If we get this Hillsborough law passed—and get the King to rubber stamp it, or whatever happens—our job will be done. The good people behind us are unsung heroes who have helped us along this journey. There is a lot to thank them for as well, and hopefully to thank all of you for.

[The Chair]

There are a lot more questions that Members would like to ask all of you, and no doubt there are a lot more answers that you will wish to give, but we have run out of time—that was inevitable this morning. Thank you so much for coming. I appreciate that it has not been easy for any of you; we all understand that, but we are deeply grateful to you. Thank you so much.

Charlotte Hennessy: Thank you for the opportunity. As members of the Bill Committee, you have a huge opportunity to change that culture and make our legal system stronger and better. Please do not waste it, and please do not let the public down.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

James Asser Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am afraid this will be the last question, because we have only a couple of minutes left, regrettably.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for what you have told us; it is important to hear from people who are directly involved. We have heard a lot today from the Hillsborough families. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but their experience was 35 years ago, and yours is much more contemporary, but it feels that in the three decades between the two there has been no progress and no improvement. You are just experiencing a variation on what they experienced. Is that a fair assessment? If it is, do you feel that the only way we are going to get the culture change that you and others have spoken about is by having the legal redress and recourse to be able to force that to happen?

Edward Daffarn: From very early on, our thoughts were that if Hillsborough is to mean anything, it is that we as Grenfell survivors are not having to make a generational battle out of what we are trying to fight for. And yet we are sitting here, eight and a half years after Grenfell, still fighting for justice. At its core, what this Bill says about candour, honesty, changing culture and criminal sanctions addresses Bishop James Jones’s razor-sharp comments about the imbalance of power. That is really important. If that imbalance of power can be addressed, then hopefully people in future will not have to suffer in the way that the Hillsborough families suffered and we suffered.

[The Chair]

Thank you for your evidence, Mr Daffarn. I am afraid that is the end of this panel. Thank you for taking the time to speak for us, and for your comments, observations and responses to questions.

Edward Daffarn: Thank you for letting me speak to you.

Examination of Witness

Chief Constable Craig Guildford gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Asser]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Before we hear from this panel, I need to declare an interest. From 2014 to 2015 I worked for Hacked Off, alongside one of the witnesses.

[The Chair]

We note the point of order from James Asser—thank you.

We will now hear oral evidence from Flora Page KC, WhistleblowersUK, Second Sight and Hacked Off. We have until 6.5 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? I am beginning to sound like a stuck record.

Nathan Sparkes: I am Nathan Sparkes, chief executive of the Hacked Off Campaign.

Jacqui Hames: I am Jacqui Hames, one of the directors of Hacked Off.

Ron Warmington: I am Ron Warmington, chairman of Second Sight Investigations.

James Killen: I am James Killen, head of policy and research at WhistleblowersUK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Q Forgive me, but you are a slight peculiarity in that your function was very different. I suspect that you might have a different view about an organisation like Fujitsu, which was contracted by the Post Office and which seems to carry the whole of the blame—besides the behaviour of the Post Office—for the catastrophe that happened so many people.

Ron Warmington: Pretty well the only material whistleblower was Richard Roll, whom I spoke to well before he was prepared to come out. We obviously protected him. We tried to give hints to people at the Post Office that there might be a whistleblower at some point—when I knew jolly well that there was—in order to give them an opportunity to follow the righteous path. They did not really pick up on that.

We have always been a bit like journalists—one never burns one’s source. If any investigator ever did that, his or her career would be over. Once you get a reputation for advancing your own case over the body of a whistleblower, your career is dead. It is self-interest to protect whistleblowers. I have on many occasions been asked by companies—in fact, bank chairmen—“Can you help us find out who this whistleblower is?” I have told them, “You’d better find another firm. I could find them in a heartbeat, but I’m not going to.” That is corruption coming out again: “This person’s causing our company problems. Can you help us find the troublemaker?” “No. Go away.” But not all firms do that.

Flora Page: On the Fujitsu question, it is extraordinary that, over all those years that Fujitsu was remotely accessing sub-postmasters’ accounts and using their user IDs to enter transactions, there were no whistleblowers. That tells you all you need to know about certain organisations not providing the structure and the framework for whistleblowers to come forward. There must have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who knew what was going on.

[James Asser]

Q We have heard from Hillsborough families today. We have heard from a Grenfell survivor. What we heard from them is remarkably similar although those two events were 30 years apart. Nathan, you have outlined other parts of the timeline that show that this has been a problem for decades. We talked about culture change, but we have reached a point where only the law will force people to behave in a decent way, which is a fairly depressing position to have got into. Given what Jacqui said about some organisations being able to put criminality as an acceptable risk as part of their business model, how confident can we be that the Bill will achieve culture change? Are there things that we will need to keep an eye on and follow up? That is an open-ended, difficult question, but I feel we should pose it.

Nathan Sparkes: In terms of public officials’ candour in investigations and so on, we endorse the position of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, of which we are a part. Further to its amendments, the Bill does a good job.

In terms of the specific phenomenon that we have identified of corrupt relationships between public officials and the media, the Bill does not go nearly far enough. Those relationships are, by their nature, covert. They are at best improper and at worst corrupt and unlawful. The only part of the Bill that attempts to grapple with them at the moment is the code. Public officials who are engaged in that kind of corrupt behaviour are very unlikely to be persuaded to clean up their act by a code.

A whole succession of investigations, inquiries and scandals have all come to the same conclusion: we need a public inquiry into the specific phenomenon of relations between public officials and the media. Given the long title of the Bill and what it promises to achieve, that appears to us to be a significant omission. That is why we are very keen for the Committee to consider an amendment to that effect. Jacqui, do you have anything to add?

Jacqui Hames: Yes. What is the risk for the individual concerned in that transaction? If you think there is a bigger risk of being exposed and taken to court, you will change the way you behave. Having been a police officer in the ’70s and ’80s, as well as having seen things from this perspective, the difference is the culture of secrecy and reputational protection. If you can change that from the inside and say, “This is not going to be tolerated. This is what’s going to happen,” people will stand behind that. It will give them protection if they are being sucked into something that they cannot get themselves out of and are coerced. In many respects, that is the difficult area: people being coerced into behaviour that in another circumstance they would perhaps not consider getting involved in. It is a real problem that people get coerced—as Nathan said—because so much of this happens in secret.

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry for interrupting, but that brings us to the end of our allotted time for the Committee to ask questions; I am sorry that we do not have any more. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses and regret that we will not be able to take this further with you today. Please let the Committee have any other comments in writing.

Examination of Witnesses

Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram gave evidence.