Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them.

The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards.

As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not.

Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that:

“People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.”

Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe.

The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims.

As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents.

However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change.

In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences.

It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government.

First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to

“ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”.

How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said?

Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully.

Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret.

The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness.

The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was

“a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.”

Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court.

I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr Weatherby; that is most helpful.

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

Q I am the shadow Justice Minister. Thank you for the written briefings, particularly the one done with INQUEST and Justice North, which is very detailed. As has been alluded to, we cannot go through it all, but could you pick out perhaps the two or three points where it is most important to make further amendments, based on what you just said?

Pete Weatherby: Primarily, our concerns are around command responsibility and the extent to which the Bill covers, or does not cover, the intelligence services, and we have concerns about the clause 11 offence going too far in its requirements.

[Dr Mullan]

Q We have time for you to expand slightly on what you want to see change in those three elements.

Pete Weatherby: On command responsibility, the Bill, and the original Bill, created both individual and corporate duties, and quite rightly so. The problem with the corporate duties is that the offences require a very high threshold. They require either intent or subjective recklessness, which means that the person has to foresee the risk but nevertheless decide to take it. It is not impossible, but it is extraordinarily difficult, to apply that to an inanimate object like a corporate body.

In the original Bill, we imposed some corporate duties but put the responsibility for enforcing them on the heads of the public body involved; this has not quite been followed through in this Bill. We would like to see a simple amendment to clauses 5 and 11, as we set out in the briefing, to put that legal responsibility on the chief officer or the chief executive of the public body. Without that, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good but is rather ineffective. We have said all the way through that our watchwords are “practical” and “effective”. If law is not practical and effective, don’t bother. That is the first thing.

On the intelligence services, some of the many campaigns behind a Hillsborough law include the Manchester Arena families. There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing. This is all in the public domain: they had intelligence that related to the bomber and the bomber’s activities, and they did not act on it. The chair of the public inquiry, having heard closed evidence, came to the conclusion that they should have acted on it. Although he could not say whether it would have made a difference, it might have made a difference. Obviously, that is very important. The problem beyond that was that MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.

There are other examples. Obviously, we have very limited time. I know you are going to hear from Daniel De Simone, the BBC reporter, this afternoon. His case is another one where the security services have fallen short in terms of candour. These are not the only examples. We are very keen to apply the duty of candour and all of the duties here as much as possible to the security services. The objections to that are that it might interfere with national security. I represented seven of the Manchester Arena families, and I can say very clearly that there is no intention to interfere with national security whatsoever—quite the opposite.

The Bill drafted by us, and this Bill, does not affect national security, positively or negatively. It just does not affect it. What it does affect is that when the intelligence services have to report to an inquiry or the Intelligence and Security Committee or whatever, they have to tell the truth, whether in open or closed session. That is the key element of it. We think that has been missed.

The Government invited me to have a meeting with the intelligence services last night, and I did. I know that this Committee has been briefed as well. I think it was quite clear that the intelligence services have missed that point. We have put forward a very simple amendment that we think takes complete account of those concerns about national security. We ask you to look at that and to adopt that amendment.

[The Chair]

The Minister has graciously indicated that she wants Members to have the chance to ask questions. Minister, feel free to come back if you choose to. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Does either of you wish to make a brief opening statement? I do mean brief.

Tom Guest: No, thank you.

Professor Lewis: No, thank you.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Hello; I am the shadow Justice Minister. Professor Lewis, are there any significant differences, or even minor differences, between the work that the Law Commission did and its recommendations, and the Bill as drafted?

Professor Lewis: Yes, there are some differences, but the Bill substantially implements the Law Commission’s recommendations on misconduct in public office. All of the core structural reforms have been adopted, in clauses 12 and 13. There are a few material differences in detail; I will perhaps run through them as a list, without expanding on them, and then if there are any you wish to pick up, you can.

There are some objective fault elements in both offences where the commission had recommended subjective awareness: in the seriously improper acts offence, the commission recommended that the defendant had to realise that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper, whereas the Bill requires that the defendant knows or ought to know that. There is a similar shift in the breach of duty offence.

There is some divergence in relation to the defence to what we recommended as the corruption offence—the seriously improper acts offence. We recommended a public interest defence; the Bill has a reasonable excuse defence. We recommended that the persuasive or legal burden be on the defendant, whereas in the Bill it is only an evidential burden to raise the defence that is on the defendant.

There is an extra seriousness threshold in the breach of duty offence, which we explicitly rejected; we did not think it was needed. That is the requirement that

“the act…falls far below what could reasonably be expected”.

It is a sort of gross negligence threshold.

I think the other points are fairly minor. One is about the repeal of section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and the other is some differences in relation to what counts as holding public office. Having said that, our recommendations on that were that the Government consider certain kinds of public office for inclusion in the list, and the Government have considered all of those kinds of public office. We had anticipated that further work would be needed to refine the list, and that work has been done.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Professor Lewis. Does Mr Guest wish to come in on the back of any of that?

Tom Guest: No, thank you.

[Dr Mullan]

Q It is obviously difficult to talk about hypotheticals, but I think it is potentially helpful, because we are talking about legal terms that not even members of the Committee will necessarily be familiar with. Taking first subjective versus objective awareness, in what sort of scenarios might that create a difference in how the Bill operates?

Professor Lewis: What it does is expand the scope of the offence. In circumstances where the defendant was not aware—did not realise—that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper in relation to the seriously improper acts offence, or was not aware of the duty in the context of the breach of duty offence, under our recommendations, the defendant would not be liable. Under the provisions in the Bill, however, if the jury were of the view that the defendant ought to have realised the relevant fact, that would suffice. It is an expansion of liability.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I ask the same question, but on reasonable excuse versus public interest.

Professor Lewis: That is less clear. The one thing I could say quite confidently is that there is a significantly lower burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant just has to introduce some evidence to raise the possibility of a reasonable excuse, and the burden will then be on the prosecution to disprove the reasonable excuse beyond reasonable doubt—so to the criminal standard. That difference in relation to the burden of proof is favourable to the defence.

On whether there is a material difference in relation to a public interest defence versus a reasonable excuse defence, I think reasonable excuse would probably encompass things that would fall within a public interest defence and might be broader, but without anything on the face of the Bill constraining what a reasonable excuse is, it is difficult to say. I suppose, eventually, there will be case law that will deal with the question of what does and does not constitute a reasonable excuse in these circumstances.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Mr Guest, can you see any prosecutorial disadvantages to the new offences compared with the existing law?

Tom Guest: No. In general, we were supportive of this project from the outset—not because we were having difficulties with the common law offence, but because it sets it out much more clearly to have it contained in an Act. It clears up certain areas such as, “Who is a public official?” and, “How should a jury assess seriousness?” We have not identified disadvantages with the misconduct provisions.

[The Chair]

The Minister has once again kindly waived her right to question, so I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

Q To Tom and Professor Lewis, under the Bill as drafted, could a public authority have a legitimate reason for not complying with the duty of candour? If yes, can you give me an example?

Tom Guest: I partly covered this previously but, to draw that out, no, we have not identified any freestanding offence, either in the statute or in general, that is likely to apply. It is important to underline that clause 3(7) covers the fact that if there is another Act of Parliament or another rule of law that prohibits providing information, the duty of candour does not override that. That is the only exception to the duty of candour that we have identified to draw to your attention.

[Dr Mullan]

Q The common law offence is unlimited in its penalties, essentially. Do you, as prosecutors, sometimes advocate for sentences above what will be the statutory limit to the sentences for the new offences?

Tom Guest: The statutory limits introduced by the Bill seem to fit the culpability in the two offences. The breach of duty offence is clearly far more serious because it engages a duty to prevent death or serious injury. We see the statutory penalty as high and suitable, so far as it is for the CPS to say that. Similarly, the seriously improper acts offence perhaps does not have the same level of culpability but it still has a significant penalty. It is within the remit of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, so we have not identified any concerns about the proposed penalties.

[Dr Mullan]

Q But are you aware of examples that have gone above those limits?

Tom Guest: I am not aware of them. There is always a question of overlap. If you have another offence, such as an offence of rape, then we would be charging rape, and we have the maximum sentence of life there.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I will pick up on the earlier questions on contractors and subcontractors. If I put in everybody’s mind the Post Office Horizon scandal, where you had contractors and potentially subcontractors, do you think that there would be any obstacles to prosecuting a scenario similar to the Post Office Horizon scandal because of contractor and subcontractor limits?

Professor Lewis: All I can say in relation to the misconduct in public office offences, the ones that the Law Commission recommended, is that we recommended the Government consider the inclusion of contractors. They have not been included separately in schedule 4 but, as Mr Guest said, I do not think I am in a position to comment on whether in particular cases, particular offences may have been committed, because one would need to see the evidence and one would need to be a prosecutor in order to take a view on that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q But potentially?

Professor Lewis: If someone were in public office, which I think is not necessarily the case based on the clauses before us, it is possible that the seriously improper act offence could be considered. I think that is as far as I can possibly help.

Tom Guest: Turning to the duty of candour extension, which directly addresses this, I think our straight answer is that “direct contractual relationship” is in the Bill for a reason; of course we would look at the evidence and the precise contract, but it does appear limited to that. I agree with what Professor Lewis said: when you come to the misconduct in public office offences, schedule 4 is intended to reflect existing public offices, but every attention should be paid to it to decide whether it has become any wider or more narrow, and whether there is good reason for that. We are not expressing a view but, if we are going to replicate the existing common law, we need to make sure that schedule 4 does so effectively.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Q Grenfell United submitted some evidence to us with extracts from the Grenfell inquiry of local government officers repeatedly saying, “Can’t recall, can’t recall”. How would the duty of candour apply in those circumstances? How do we prevent what they would see as stonewalling of the inquiry?

Tom Guest: Even if I were possessed of the information about the Grenfell live investigation, I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on that directly. However, having scrutinised the proposals on the duty of candour, we do not say lightly that it is tightly and clearly drawn. There is not an ambiguity in what is expected of public officials or public authorities in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Before I invite questions, can I say personally how very much I appreciate that you are here and have taken the trouble to be here today. The lines of questioning will be as sympathetic as, under these circumstances, it is possible to make them.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Kieran, the shadow Justice Minister. I want to give my sincere condolences to all of you and all of the families for what you have been through. I want to commend your persistence, courage and bravery in carrying on and campaigning over such an extended period, as you have all done. It really is remarkable, and we are all very grateful. I will not ask many questions, as there are MPs on the panel who have worked with you and know you very well, and I am sure that they will be keen to ask questions.

I will just ask whether any of you want to talk about how things might have been different, and how the experience might have been different for you, had you known what had happened from the start and had truth from the outset.

Charlotte Hennessy: My experience is very different from Margaret’s, Sue’s and Steve’s, because I was so young. I did not know the magnitude of what had happened until the Hillsborough independent panel released its report. That was the only opportunity I had to access evidence statements and be able to piece a timeline together of what actually happened to my dad. That was when I really realised the magnitude of what had happened. I want to acknowledge the Hillsborough family members who are not here today—if it were not for them, and for the survivors who stood by their truth even when they were shut down by those who were supposed to protect them, and if they had not fought the fight, children like me would never have known the truth of what happened.

For me, it only got worse from there. It was like Hillsborough had just happened at that time, because that was when I realised that my dad’s original cause of death was completely untrue—even down to his pathology report being untrue. It was not how my dad died. I will not speak about the details here, but I will send them privately to the Committee. It has had a profound impact.

Had all that information been available, I do not think I would have had to spend my whole teenage and adult life fighting for the truth of what happened to my dad. It now impacts my own children, like Margaret said earlier. My husband is here in the room today. We have had to educate our children on the seriousness of those lies, on the impact of the cover-up, and on the fact that their granddad would have been buried in a lie if it were not for those good people.

[The Chair]

Could I just ask, because there are four of you, that you indicate when you wish to add to the first answer given? That will help me to help the Committee, as we have quite a lot of questions to get through.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Part of the Bill is about creating parity of esteem in legal advice and support, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that it costs money. Have any of you experienced financial loss as a result of everything you have had to do?

Margaret Aspinall: Yes. The family has had great financial loss. As I said earlier, I had four other young children. The youngest was only six—the same age as Charlotte—at the time, the next was seven, one was nine, and then a son who was fifteen going on sixteen. They had an absolutely terrible time. I had to change their schools because of things young children were saying. Innocent children were saying terrible things about how their brother died and how it was caused. Obviously, it was what they were listening to, so I had to change their schools. It was a very difficult thing. My husband was at the game as well, and he has never been to a game since. He just cannot face going to another football match. My children went through a terrible time, like Charlotte did.

At the same time, I realised something when Sue and I were working in the Hillsborough office a few years ago. A phone call came through, and Sue said to me, “Margaret, there’s somebody on the phone for you.” I picked the phone up, and it was my granddaughter, who was 10 at the time; she said, “I would like an appointment to see my nan, please.” I thought, “I’m doing to my grandchildren exactly what I’ve done to my own children.” I was working so hard, and not just myself, but others—though I can only speak for myself—to get to the truth of Hillsborough. The lies and the cover-up, as Charlotte said, were an absolute disgrace.

When it came to the funding, we had to pay for every court case we went to. I am even talking about even judicial reviews, scrutiny, inquests, all different things. We paid every step of the way, and they had lawyers paid for by the state—from our taxpayers’ money—while we had to go cap in hand, trying to fight for the truth that was there all along, and for justice. What families went through—I cannot forgive that.

My children grew up with Hillsborough and my grandchildren are growing up with Hillsborough now, 36 years on. They are still not seeing their nan because I am busy doing other things to try to get a Hillsborough law, alongside others—good people, unsung heroes, who are supporting this campaign. They have done so much to change a system that must be changed—not for us, because it is too late for us—but for the good of this nation. The law has got to be changed, in all its entirety.

Steve Kelly: On the point of finances, when Hillsborough happened, obviously your finances just did not come into it. I will speak personally—I was a taxi driver at the time, and taxi drivers never earn good money, do they? You are always struggling, but you get by. I remember that I had to go to Sheffield to find my brother, I came home, and the last burden that I wanted to give to my mother and my sister Joan was issues of finance.

When the disaster was coming to the fore and all the information was coming out, we were obviously making plans to bury our brother. There was only one thing you could do at that time: you would go and borrow the money. I went to the bank and borrowed the money. I never, ever went to my mam and told her how much it was. Again, she had just lost her son, and she did not know how. You just bore those problems and lived through them for years, on the financial side alone, with paying loans back and so on.

That is why we want this law in—we beg you to bring this law in—because the trauma alone of losing someone, and then the trauma again of all these years fighting back, is so difficult to bear. The financial burden was not even a second thought—I appreciate the question, but it was nothing to do with us really. We got through it. People should not have to get through things. People should be helped and supported. This law, hopefully, will do that.

[The Chair]

Once again, the Minister has indicated that she wants Members to have the opportunity to ask questions. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.