Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Ian Byrne.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Tessa Munt]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it. It is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families of the victims and the survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago had it become law sooner.

The Bill requires the state and its agents to tell the truth about their misconduct, and gives rights to the victims, not least the right of representation on fair and equal terms in inquests and inquiries. Let us therefore celebrate a landmark piece of legislation which, like the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act under the last Labour Government, gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable; but let us also look for ways to improve it by strengthening what is in it and adding what has been left out.

I welcome the duty of candour in clause 2, which requires public authorities and officials to act with “candour, transparency and frankness”. Clause 4 extends the duty of candour to bodies or individuals who are not public authorities or officials, but who had a “relevant public responsibility”. However, it requires

“a direct contractual relationship with the public authority”,

which means that subcontractors or subsidiary companies would not be caught by the duty of candour, and I think that is wrong.

Clause 11 introduces a new offence of misleading the public. It is a strong test, but the Bill also contains exemptions and caveats that may make it less comprehensive or effective. First, the “harm” test in the clause is unnecessary. The object of the clause is to prevent the public from being misled. That may cause harm to an individual, but it should not be a requirement. Preventing reliance on wrong information is an end in itself.

Secondly, the carve-out for the security services is too broad. Schedule 1 not only exempts legitimate safeguards such as national security, but gives a general exemption to intelligence officers at all levels up to and including director. Thirdly, clause 11 provides an exemption from the offence of misleading the public for acts done

“for the purposes of journalism.”

However, the scope of this exemption is unclear. For example, does it extend to individuals being interviewed as well as those conducting the interviews, or to public officials who also, for instance, publish news columns or host news programmes? We know all too well from Hillsborough that the actions of the media can lead to injustice for victims.

However, aside from that exemption, the role of the media has been overlooked by the Bill. South Yorkshire police defamed the Hillsborough families and survivors, but they did not do so alone. Their lies and smears were promoted by several newspapers, most notably The Sun.

It was the culture, and the connections between the newspapers and the police, that enabled this to happen, and there is no evidence that that has changed. Just as South Yorkshire police were protected by The Sun after Hillsborough, the Metropolitan police were responsible for astonishing oversights in the investigations into phone hacking at News of the World.

The culture of complicity was due to be investigated by part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Margaret Aspinall, who is here today, was among those due to give evidence to Leveson. Her son died at Hillsborough; he was only 18. Margaret has written powerfully in the Liverpool Echo today about the need for this Bill and for the press to be held to account.

I would like to voice my support for the expansion in legal aid for inquests that will be brought in by the Bill. The Bill provides that families will be eligible for non-means-tested legal aid if a public authority is an interested person at the inquest. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how that expansion in legal aid will be funded. What is the estimated cost of providing representation at inquests and inquiries, and how will it be funded? Will it be, for example, from existing budgets?

Finally, I will mention a couple of provisions that I think should be added to the Bill. There is no mention of the Independent Public Advocate. It would be good to hear from the Government on how they think that office—for which the Lord Chancellor has just made an excellent appointment in the person of Cindy Butts—can work to support victims through the Bill.

There is also no national oversight mechanism provided for in the Bill, despite widespread support for one as a necessary guarantee of the successful implementation of public inquiries and prevention of future deaths reports. A national oversight mechanism, which has been proposed by the charity Inquest—which I know has been working closely with the Hillsborough families—would ensure that recommendations from inquests and inquiries were effectively publicised and that their implementation was monitored. Too often, the recommendations of inquiries sit on shelves and are not implemented, and no one goes back to see that they are. A national oversight mechanism is a major omission from the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point when she winds up.

I invite the Minister to respond to the points I have raised this evening. The Bill is an overdue, but no less welcome, piece of legislation that the whole House should wish to improve and enact.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Following the next contribution, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes—so, on a six-minute time limit, I call Abtisam Mohamed.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As the Member for Sheffield Central, I approach this Second Reading debate with pride that we have finally got here, but with the deepest frustration and sadness at the time that that has taken. Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), will be pleased that we are finally here, and I am sure that they will stand in complete solidarity with the families affected.

For over three decades, our city was part of a tragedy that repeatedly scarred families and communities who lived far beyond South Yorkshire. Not only were 97 lives lost at Hillsborough; those people were unlawfully killed—and instead of those lives being honoured and mourned, the families of the 97 had to swallow their grief and fight decades of institutional injustice, indifference and denial.

The failures were not limited to what happened on that day in April 1989. They continued for months, years and decades after: wave after wave of betrayal for families already living with the unimaginable pain of losing their loved ones; wave after wave of betrayal by those in leadership positions who just closed ranks; wave after wave of betrayal by the media, leading to cover-ups, delays and dishonesty.

With this Bill, we can say that this will never happen again—to anyone; because, while the bereaved families have sought justice for their loved ones, the cover-ups have continued. They include Grenfell, Horizon and the infected blood scandal, to name just a few. Time and again, families have watched as the same playbook is used to smear working-class communities and protect those at the very top.

It is right that the Hillsborough families have pushed hard for non-means-tested legal aid, because while those who covered up benefited from the public purse to fund their legal fees, families had to scrimp, save and borrow just to enter the legal system on the same footing.

I am pleased that this Bill will ensure that there is change, and that that change will start now. Fair access to justice means that no victim will be left to fight the state alone. With the duty of candour, public bodies must act truthfully, they must support investigations and they must behave in line with the Nolan principle of integrity. Now when things go wrong—when tragedy strikes—lessons must be learned, not buried.

This is the Hillsborough law, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for their tireless efforts to ensure that those lessons are protected through the Bill. Their legacy, and that of the bereaved families, is the one that will be remembered. Their tireless campaigning has resulted in change at the very top, and their relentless fight has forced the Government and public institutions to abandon a culture of cover-ups. There must be accountability, and there must be no dilution. At the bottom and at the heart of this, there must always be justice for the 97.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

On a five-minute time limit, I call Dame Nia Griffith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Gordon McKee.