Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful.

The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police.

Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them.

I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils.

The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans.

As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public.

Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare.

We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of

“falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”,

risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom.

We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest.

At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.