Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

To reassure my hon. Friend, the House, the families and all others affected by such scandals, these are clauses in a Bill that will soon be sections in a piece of legislation, but they are more than that: they change the nature of the relationship between the state and its duties to its people. That is so important. Yes, this Bill is the legal architecture, but something much bigger than this has to be put in place.

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

rose—

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, then I will come to my right hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

I welcome this Bill. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents that organisations that are contractors for public authorities and public bodies will also be covered the provisions of the Bill? It is important that where responsibilities are deferred to other bodies, they too are captured by the clauses in this Bill.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady anticipates my next point, which I will make before taking an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). We have to recognise that in some scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, the boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are complicated. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, clause 4 of this Bill applies the duty to some private bodies, particularly those delivering public functions and those with relevant health and safety responsibilities, as well as relevant public sector contractors—in the Post Office case, Fujitsu—for that very reason. We have to recognise that the boundaries are blurred, and we need to make sure that the duty extends appropriately.

--- 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?

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Minister will see my pile of papers, which I hope are criticisms that I never have to raise again. I welcome his statement and the work being done, particularly by Sir Brian Langstaff and others. I also welcome his intention to listen to and work with the infected blood community. This scandal remains the worst treatment disaster in the history of our national health service, and it is a source of shame for successive Governments and for the health service. We have heard from our constituents, who have been let down by medical professionals and the NHS. In many cases, they were victims of deliberate malpractice and cover-up. All those warnings about unsafe blood were ignored and officials failed to inform patients. In many cases, those patients paid, or are still paying, with their lives.

An estimated 30,000 victims suffered, and that suffering was compounded by the further injustice of having to wait decades for compensation. As of my latest data, I understand that six times as many people have died waiting for justice as have benefited from this scheme. I hope the Minister can update me with a slightly more accurate figure. Payments to date have been made at an infuriatingly glacial pace.

I would like to ask the Minister about the timelines for delivering compensation. Can he reaffirm that all eligible victims—all 30,000—will receive compensation by 2029? Will he confirm that the consultation he will undertake will not delay in any way or affect the speed at which the payments are being made? More specifically, I have challenged him before about the 916 victims of the special category mechanism. Are they in a different state from the advice given in August last year? Have things changed completely from the situation in February this year, when the rules changed?

I just want to check something that I am not entirely clear about. With the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, the current approach was that people could not apply for compensation, and you are now saying that they can and that they will not have to wait—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Ms Munt, you say, “you are saying”, but I am not. I hope you are coming to a conclusion.

[Tessa Munt]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that people will not have to wait and that those 10,573 registrations are only part of it, when we recognise that there are 30,000 victims?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Cases of the kind my hon. Friend is talking about are the reason we have been consulting on a public interest test. On the specific case he raises, if he writes to me I will ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) provides him with a response.

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

My constituent Phil is in the special category mechanism for the 916 people who were inexplicably excluded from the infected blood compensation scheme in February, even though the Government’s expert group said in August last year that they should be compensated. On 5 June, the Paymaster General said he would consider the compensation arrangements. I may have missed it—forgive me if I have—but I also asked for a list of conditions that might be included within that. Does he have an update for me, please?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am certainly looking at the issue of the special category mechanism, as I undertook to do. If the hon. Lady writes to me I can look at the specific list, but I am also hoping, with Mr Speaker’s permission, to update the House on this and other infected blood issues very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is campaigning strongly for her constituents on this issue. We are establishing the maternity and neonatal national taskforce, which will develop a national plan to drive improvements across maternity and neonatal care. It will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and made up of a panel of experts, and family, charity and staff representatives. I was pleased to learn that my hon. Friend met Baroness Merron in June to discuss maternity care in Luton North.

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

Post maternity, many women suffer female pelvic prolapse, but I am unable to get any answers on the matter of surgical mesh implants. Will the Minister please work with his counterparts at the Department of Health and Social Care to get a realistic update on exactly what has happened as a result of the Hughes report, and give me the information about meetings between the Department and the Patient Safety Commissioner about progress on those recommendations?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will absolutely raise the issue with colleagues in the Department and we will write to the hon. Lady urgently with the answers she is looking for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I again pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General for the work he did in standing up for the victims of this scandal. He is right to raise the case of his constituent, and about the balance between respecting IBCA’s independence and the levers, assistance and support that Ministers, and I specifically, can offer to IBCA. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with him about his specific suggestion.

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

My constituent Phill is one of the 916 people in the special category mechanism who were suddenly and inexplicably excluded from the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme when it was published in February this year, even though the Government’s expert group had said in August last year that they should be compensated. Why did the criteria informing the eligibility for the scheme change without explanation, and can the Minister please provide a list of all the conditions included in the core award?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. Components of the SCM criteria are planned in both the core awards and the supplementary route, and those in receipt of SCM payments can continue to receive those payments under the infected blood support schemes route. However, as I said in my evidence to the inquiry only a few weeks ago, that is a matter that I will consider further.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the special category mechanism is one that I was asked about in front of the inquiry last week. It relates to conditions that qualified under the special category mechanism, some of which go into the core route for infected people and some of which go into the supplemental route. I gave an undertaking to the inquiry last week that I would look at whether there were particular issues, and I think that is what he is identifying in relation to his constituent. As I said quite openly to the inquiry last week, the test that I use around changes to the scheme is to ensure that it does not cause even further delay.

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

I am grateful for the Minister’s statement, but I too would like to identify the gaping hole in the compensation scheme that relates to the special category mechanism. I point out that some of my constituents are in very poor health and their lives may be limited time-wise, yet they will end up with less compensation than someone who is in stage one and is healthy. At every point throughout the process, the compensation scheme has said that the SCM infected should be compensated. The infected blood inquiry said the same thing. The Government’s own expert group also said in August 2024, until they were hauled back into the Cabinet Office and then they changed their mind, that they must have compensation. I invite the Paymaster General to meet me and my affected constituent—it would have to be online, and it would be with his carer because this gentleman is very ill and suffering dreadfully, and yet he seems to have been excluded from getting fair compensation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Again, the hon. Lady quite reasonably raises the issue of the special category mechanism, which I answered a question about from her hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). On the specific case she talks about, I would be grateful if she wrote to me with all the details, and then I would be more than happy to ensure she gets a reply as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The royal port of Barrow provides a model for how defence can be a catalyst for skilled, well-paid jobs throughout the United Kingdom. I was proud and humbled to be able to thank the crew of the Vanguard submarine that was returning home after months away, with four of those on board returning to their newborn children. That is the change that will come from our spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, for the first time since the last Labour Government. Extra investment in Barrow has been made possible by my hon. Friend and this Government; those in the Conservative party made promises, but, as usual, they never, ever set the money aside.

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

Q2. Ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, may I thank the Prime Minister for his Government’s recognition of the highly dangerous and clandestine work of the 1,746 pilots and navigators who formed the RAF’s photographic reconnaissance squadrons, and the 635 Buckinghamshire-based photographic interpreters—often forgotten—whose service will be marked with a national memorial near the Churchill war rooms? They had a death rate of nearly 50% and a life expectancy of only two and a half months, but they nevertheless captured 26 million images of enemy operations, providing daily, up-to-date intelligence, via the interpreters’ analysis, to the strategists in the Cabinet war rooms, for all our armed forces. May I ask the Prime Minister to join me when that national memorial is unveiled so that we can pay our respects to the likes of the late Captain Wilfred Bruce Tilley DFC, of Axbridge in my constituency, and the other amazing young men and women whose work was so critical to the safety of millions of people in this country and elsewhere?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important issue. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support a memorial to the service and sacrifice of those veterans. The bravery and service of individuals such as Captain Tilley, and others in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and the photographic interpretation units, saved the lives of many servicemen and servicewomen and, of course, civilians, and—as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—the cost was the many casualties in those units. As we mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, we will remember those who helped to secure our greatest victory.

Ukraine

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will not provide a running commentary on American decisions, but there have already been cyber-attacks on our NHS, and we must be vigilant about such attacks. The Russian threat is multifaceted. Everything, pretty much, is being weaponised, and that is why it is important that we always link back what is happening in Ukraine with what is happening in our country.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for everything he has done over the last few days—it has been admirable. Will he endeavour to ensure that we prioritise military spending on outcomes rather than, strictly, the amount of money that is spent? The rush to avoid criticism of underspending often means that cost-effectiveness can be lost. Should not the defence and international aid budgets be viewed as a rolling average over several years rather than annually, to avoid the accounting gymnastics that might otherwise happen every March?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important to ensure, as we spend more on defence, that we get value for the money that we are investing, and the best capability. The hon. Lady is right: it is, in a sense, the outcome that matters here, which is why the strategic review is going through the challenges that we face and the capabilities to ensure that they match up. She is right about the need to ensure that there is value for money and we are getting the best we can in terms of the capability that we need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

Under the Conservative Government, too much taxpayers’ money was wasted on eye-watering consultancy contracts. We are taking steps to stop all non-essential Government consultancy spending this year and halve Government spending on consultancy in future years. [Interruption.] It might be hard for Conservative Members to hear about their record, but it is harder for us to live with it.

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

T3. Last week, the Government released their latest departmental lobbying transparency data. The data was two months late and relates to the last months of the previous Government, namely April to June 2024. The public will learn who the new Government met during their first weeks in power only at the end of December, a full six months after the election, and that is only if the data is released on time. UK lobbying rules have more holes than Swiss cheese, so will the Government set a timeline for creating a central database of departmental transparency data, with monthly updates, thereby closing the litany of loopholes in the current lobbying rules?

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Government are committed to transparency around lobbying. That is why we will have regular transparency updates. The approach that we take will frankly be in stark contrast with that of the Government who preceded us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

At the Five Eyes summit last month, I reiterated this Government’s firm commitment to tackling fraud and learning from our closest intelligence allies. Fraud does not respect international boundaries. This is a top priority for this Government, and we are taking action to build a wide anti-fraud coalition on advanced artificial intelligence and analytics, and to take further action on enforcement.

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

You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that we are coming to the end of Whistleblowing Awareness Week. Civil servants and others are Ministers’ best friends. They are the people who can indicate where to find evidence of fraud, corruption and other criminal activity. May I press Ministers to create the office of the whistleblower, to give new legal protection, to normalise speaking out and to promote greater public awareness of whistleblowing rights, demonstrating the importance of whistleblowers in a fair, open and transparent society?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to two things: the good work that civil servants do and the valuable role that whistleblowers play. That is why the last time we were in government, we legislated for legal protection for whistleblowers. It is important that people can come forward without fear of what they have to reveal.