Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Third sitting)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

Absolutely. The Bill is focused on those examples that are clear and egregious, where it is easy to say that there has been a failure of candour or a deliberate attempt to cover up. The legislation will cover many other situations, however, including Members of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we are expected to operate with a degree of frankness and candour, and yet just this week we have been fiercely debating whether one of our own has or has not done that. It is important for Members to reflect on the wideness of the ramifications outside the purely obvious examples of what might constitute candour, or a lack of it.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have, in yesterday’s resignation of the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, quite a sensible example of what he is trying to express? That gentleman was due to be in front of a Select Committee of this House this morning, but by resigning, he has skipped being held to account for what he must know about the situation. Candour should surely also apply to those who have resigned.

If I may, Sir Roger, I refer back to the fact that one of the deepest problems has been the resignation of senior police officers. Because they have resigned, they skip away over the horizon and are not able to be held to account. There is only one way that someone should not be held to account, which is through not being on this earth any longer.

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry I have to keep intervening; let us get this right from the beginning, and then it will stay right all the way through. Interventions must be interventions, not speeches. There is a degree of leeway in Committee that does not exist on the Floor of the House, but nevertheless, please try to confine interventions to brevity if possible, because otherwise Members will be here all night. I concede to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that, while the Bill clearly relates —and has related very heavily in terms of evidence—to Hillsborough and Grenfell, it covers a much wider range of issues. We need to remember that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

This is one of those moments when, should the hon. Gentleman wish to press new clause 2 to a vote, which he may not, it would not be called now; it would be called later in the proceedings, because all new clauses are voted on at the end of the consideration of the Bill.

We come now to amendment 31. This is one of those occasions when we are debating two separate groups of amendments to clause 2. We have the choice: the clause stand part debate can take place now or at the end, but not both. Let us bear that in mind.

Clause 2

Duty of candour and assistance

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“(ba) their failure to act, omission, or approval or tacit approval of an action are or may be relevant to the inquiry or investigation, or”.

This amendment clarifies that an indirect wrongdoing would be considered as an occurrence of misconduct or failure when examined as part of an inquiry, investigation or inquest.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(ca) where the authority or official has relevant records, including digital messages and communication, retain and disclose those records;”.

Amendment 32, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”

This amendment requires public authorities or officials who assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.

[Tessa Munt]

Amendment 31 would clarify that an indirect wrongdoing would be considered an occurrence of misconduct or failure when examined as part of an inquiry, investigation, inquest or independent panel. The purpose of and rationale for the amendment is that it would ensure that the Bill clearly covers situations where a public office holder has contributed to wrongdoing. I emphasise that this is about senior figures; I am not talking about junior civil servants and others who have little power. The amendment would apply where that senior public office holder has contributed to wrongdoing through not only direct action but a failure to act, such as an omission or tacit approval.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

indicated assent.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister. Amendment 32 would require public authorities or officials assisting an inquiry, investigation, inquest or independent panel to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation. The amendment would require public authorities to take proactive steps to ensure that all relevant officials can safely disclose information. It would strengthen protections for those providing evidence, helping to prevent retaliation or intimidation, and ensure that inquiries and investigations have access to all relevant information for thorough scrutiny of public officials’ decision making.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills for tabling these amendments. Amendment 31 seeks to ensure that, under the duty of candour and assistance, an inquiry or investigation, or, as she stated, a review panel, is notified by public authorities and officials of all relevant acts or information, including omissions or failures to act. We agree wholeheartedly, and I reassure the hon. Lady and all members of the Committee that the Bill already achieves the intent of the amendment.

Clause 23 provides definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. It specifies that an

“‘act’ includes an omission or a course of conduct”.

Therefore, in clause 2, “act” is to be read as including any omission or course of conduct that may be relevant, which could include approving the actions of others. To “have information” could include information that a person approved the actions of another person, or had knowledge of them and did not prevent them.

Amendment 42 would place a requirement on public authorities under the duty of candour and assistance to retain all relevant records, including digital records. Again, the Government agree with the intention behind the amendment, and believe that the provisions in the Bill are designed to achieve it in practice. Clause 2(4)(a) requires authorities and officials to provide information likely to be relevant to an inquiry or investigation if requested. They will not meet that obligation if they allow the information to be lost or destroyed when they ought to be providing it. In addition, the individual in charge of an authority has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to secure the authority’s compliance with that duty. That would necessarily involve ensuring that information is accessible within the authority, so that it can meet its obligations under the Bill.

Amendment 32 seeks to ensure that the Bill has adequate safeguards to protect those complying with the duty of candour and assistance. We agree that ensuring that public officials feel safe to disclose information is essential, and several aspects of the Bill speak to that point. The duty of candour and assistance provides appropriate safeguards for the protection of sensitive information and onward disclosure and ensures that officials can feel confident that the information they provide will be handled appropriately.

[Tessa Munt]

Can I ask the Minister for clarity? A lot of the proposed legislation seems to deal with when an investigation has been called for or set up. There may be a significant gap between that and when an authority knows that something has gone wrong and that an investigation, inquiry, inquest or independent panel is likely to follow. Is there is a way in which the duties can kick in the moment that somebody recognises that something will come of that rather than when an investigation is called for formally?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

There are two versions of the duty of candour: the always-on duty of candour by which every public servant should have to act in their everyday life, and the duty of candour with criminal sanctions attached to it that kicks in when there is an investigation or inquiry. The whole point is that they will work hand-in-hand. The former will prevent the latter—that is the intention. The code of ethics and the guidance that we talked about in an earlier debate will assist, but that will require a significant culture change across the whole public sector; it will not be easy or happen overnight. I am not naive enough to believe that it will be fixed just because we have the legislation. It will take a momentous effort by all of us to ensure that the culture seeps down from the top. That is also the intention behind the implementation, which we will come to later in the debate.

I reassure the hon. Lady that part 2 of the Bill requires public authorities to set out the process for exactly how public officials can raise internal complaints, to promote a culture of internal challenge. It also requires public authorities to set out their whistleblowing procedures, drawing officials’ attention to any legal protections they may benefit from. Although we are sympathetic to the intent behind amendment 32, we do not think that it will provide sufficient clarity on what public authorities would be expected to do to ensure that officials feel safe to disclose information, nor how that would operate as part of their duty of candour and assistance, for which non-compliance entails criminal sanctions.

Given those assurances, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

The Minister has made her points. I am hopeful that we will end up with those reassurances. We will pick up these points later in the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a public authority or public official is under an obligation to respond to or assist an inquiry or investigation under subsection (4) they should do so within 30 working days.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

Indeed.

[Tessa Munt]

I rise to support amendment 3, proposed by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I am also a co-signatory of amendment 1, and I thank the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston for her reference to it. I echo the comments that have been made about Primodos and many other things. We have investigations, inquiries, inquests, and independent panels—and no doubt something else will come up at some point. Will the Minister clarify that point and agree that we should have some common language to cover all those things? As has been mentioned, independent panels do come up quite often.

I seek clarity on investigations and inquiries that might be taking place already. My understanding is that the Bill will not affect them, so if someone has something that they want to raise, they will probably need to wait until the Bill has become law. That seems slightly perverse, in that there may be people who want something done within the next six months who are going to have to sit and wait. I would like some clarity on that.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank hon. Members for a useful debate getting into the detail the provisions—that is why we have Bill Committees. It would be beneficial for me to clarify exactly how the Bill applies to non-statutory inquiries, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. The duty of candour and assistance will apply to all statutory and non-statutory inquiries and inquests described in schedule 1. Non-statutory inquiries are defined as those caused by a Minister; those that include the delivery of a report with a view to publication; and those that the Minister has confirmed in writing relate to matters of public concern.

This is the first time non-statutory inquiries have been set out in law, but we envisage that this category could include investigations held under other names, such as independent panels, provided the criteria set out are met. Amendment 1 would automatically extend the duty of candour and assistance to independent panels and reviews established by Ministers. The Bill includes a power to extend the duty to other categories of investigations, or to specific investigations via secondary legislation. It is therefore not the case that if an investigation is not covered in the Bill, the duty of candour can never apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

To give an example, if the local authority children’s services department sets up an investigation into something or does one of its serious case reviews—or whatever they are called now—are that organisation, the people within it and the actors in the event that prompted it covered by the duty of candour? Can the Minister be really clear about that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to confirm that they will be. They are not currently, but the Government are tabling an amendment to cover that point, and we will come to it later in Committee. Should that amendment be made, the Bill will cover those local authority investigations.

The Cabinet Office is undertaking further work to look at how we reform inquiries. As part of that, we will consider how the different types of inquiries, reviews and investigations could be more clearly defined, and when and how they could best be used. That will inform how the duty is used.

The duty of candour and assistance is a powerful tool to ensure co-operation with investigations, but it would not be useful in all circumstances. Most reviews focus on matters of policy or technical issues— for example, the curriculum and assessment review, the net zero review and the review of the future of women’s football. In those cases, applying the duty would be unnecessary and might risk making reviews more difficult to establish and slower to report. Where the duty is applied, it must be properly monitored and enforced, and therefore frameworks for compliance and the protection of information need to be in place. We must avoid unintentionally impeding or delaying certain types of investigations by introducing unnecessary and unhelpful processes and bureaucracy. We therefore think the Bill strikes the right balance in which investigations it applies to, with the power in the Bill providing us with the tools and flexibility we need to extend the duty where it could be useful.

I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden about how we move forward with her campaign. She has been an incredible and ferocious campaigner for the Primodos families for many years. I have met her and the Primodos families, and I am committed to working with her on a way forward to ensure that the duty of candour can assist.

Amendment 3 is designed to apply the duty of candour and assistance to inquiries that the Secretary of State has designated as local inquiries into grooming gangs. I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. As he will be aware, we are moving at pace to establish a national inquiry into grooming gangs under the Inquiries Act 2005. It will be overseen by an independent commission with statutory powers to compel evidence and testimony so that institutions can be held to account for current and historic failures. The inquiry will be independent of Government and designed to command the confidence of victims and survivors and the wider public.

The Bill already applies the duty to statutory and non-statutory inquiries called by Ministers, including this new inquiry. To strengthen the Bill, we have also tabled an amendment extending the duty to inquiries called by local authorities, and we will debate that shortly. That amendment, combined with the existing provisions in the Bill, will enable the duty to apply to either local or national inquiries into grooming gangs. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

These three amendments are minor and technical. Government amendments 8 and 9 update schedule 1 to refer to a “senior coroner”, thereby identifying the statutory office for consistency with the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and other legislation. Government amendment 10 replaces a reference to this “Schedule” in schedule 1, paragraph 4 with a reference to this “paragraph”. This is a drafting refinement to clarify that the definitions in new paragraph 2A of schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 apply only to that paragraph rather than to the entirety of schedule 5. I commend these amendments to the committee.

[Tessa Munt]

Might I seek some clarity on what happens with area coroners as opposed to senior coroners?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I can confirm that an area coroner, for the sake of the Bill and under the Coroners Act, is classed as a senior coroner.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendments made: 9, in schedule 1, page 30, line 38, after “to the” insert “senior”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 32, line 1, leave out “Schedule” and insert “paragraph”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This is a drafting refinement.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3

Section 2: further provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yes, of course. I have mentioned the covid-19 inquiry—it would have been impractical for every single worker to come forward to an inquiry—but I add that the chair of an inquiry must give reasons, publishing them and outlining why it would not be practical, or not helpful to the inquiry, not to bring forward a position statement.

Subsection (7) is vital to ensure that the duty of candour does not cut across existing laws, such as those on data protection or safeguarding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Extension of duty to other persons with public responsibilities

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, after “authority” insert—

“or any sub-contractor in any chain of provision to a service provider”.

This amendment ensures that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider which was subcontracted will fall under the duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tessa Munt]

I am delighted to have got to this bit. I speak to this clause in particular, because I am extremely concerned that the duty of candour should capture subcontractors and the contractors to subcontractors. It is unbelievably common for those committed to carrying out contracts with local authorities, Government or public bodies generally to subcontract and subcontract and subcontract. There is absolutely no reason why those organisations and the people involved should not fall under the duty—those people are often the whistleblowers who tell the primary organisation, or their own, what it is that they have seen. I feel strongly that we should ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider, where there is subcontracting in place, should comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry, investigation or all the other panels and various things that we have referred to this morning.

The duty should apply not only to the primary service provider, but to the subcontractors, whether individuals or organisations. That would close a potential accountability gap by making it clear that all parties involved in providing a service must co-operate fully with inquiries, investigations and panels. It would help to ensure that relevant information is not withheld purely due to contractual arrangement. That would support comprehensive scrutiny of decisions, actions, omissions and service delivery.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise briefly to support the amendment and the points made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. It is about not just existing contractual arrangements, but how there might be perverse incentives for people to create different structures if they think that, through contracting or subcontracting, they will escape the accountability under the Bill. I am keen to hear from the Minister.

Probably the example that everyone has in mind is the Post Office scandal. That was a direct contractor, but it could have had subcontractors and so on. When the Post Office was conducting its private investigations, it might have used subcontractors to do some of those investigations. That would not be an unusual step for an organisation to take, so it is important that we get clarity on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

If subcontractors get contracted and know that they are working for a local authority or Government body, they just need to pass on that responsibility within the contractual terms. The difficulty comes the moment there is separation between the organisation that is subject to duty of candour and a subcontractor of a subcontractor. It is not difficult—we do these things with payment terms—so I plead with the Minister to make sure that we cover subcontractors. It will not be satisfactory for a subcontractor at tier 1 to speak for a subcontractor at tier 3. It will not happen. It will not be robust enough. I foresee all sorts of slippage, especially when there are whistleblowers two or three tiers down the contract. I plead with the Minister again to reconsider what she is saying.

Secondly, what happens when the senior body—the overarching organisation—is abroad? If I may use an example, Wessex Water—I am not picking on them for any particular reason—is owned by Pennon Group, which I understand is Malaysian. What happens when the head office is abroad?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to pick up both those points. On the first point, I will work with the hon. Lady to ensure that we find a way forward in terms of ensuring that there is no unintended gap and that we are not missing anything. A balance has to be struck between how far we go in the private sector before we are covering everybody with a duty of candour. However, we can find a way forward here.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I agree. I am committed to working with hon. Members on a way forward.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills about what happens if the head office is abroad, the Bill will provide the inquiry or investigation with the powers to obtain information from an individual wherever they are, even if they have retired, if they have resigned or if they now live abroad.

[Tessa Munt]

On the basis that we can all work together to make sure that we cover subcontractors, including the different tiers of subcontracting, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I was going to press it to a vote, but the Minister has assured me that she will try to do something before Report and I recognise that we have support on both sides of the Committee. I thank the Minister very much indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Offence of failing to comply with duty

[Ian Byrne]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, after “objectives” insert:

“or are reckless as to whether it will do so,”.

This is simply a strengthening amendment that has come from the lawyers, and which I hope the Government will take on board. It is worth pointing out that we only have one shot at this. We need to ensure that there is no unfortunate language that perhaps does not allow the Bill to be as strong as we need it to be, so I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

The current wording in clause 5(1) sets the mental element of failing to discharge the duty as intent, and the mental elements of failing to provide the information in the duty as intent or recklessness—being cognisant of the risk and choosing to take it nevertheless. We feel, and I certainly feel, that this is a baseless distinction and an anomaly. The mental element should be the same, and the amendment would rectify that. It is simply a strengthening amendment to make sure that we shut any gaps.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I understand that that has been corrected online, and the matter is now on the record as well.

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) If an offence under this section is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

(a) a senior officer of a public authority, or

(b) a senior officer of a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act, or

(c) a person purporting to act in such a capacity,

the senior officer or person (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

This amendment would hold senior officers liable for the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance if it is proved that they consented or connived in that failure.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by—

(a) a public authority, or

(b) a body corporate with relevant public responsibility under section 4 of this Act,

the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority or body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority or a corporate body with public responsibility under Clause 4 for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance.

Amendment 44, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the duty falls on a public authority or other body, responsibility for the discharge of that duty falls on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section.”

Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) Where an offence under this section is committed by a public authority, the chief officer or chief executive (as well as the public authority) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

This amendment would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer or chief executive of a public authority for an offence of misleading the public.

Amendment 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the act or statement is made by or in the name of the public authority, responsibility for it lies on the Chief Officer or Chief Executive for the purposes of this section”

[Tessa Munt]

The amendment would ensure that any person involved in providing a service to a service provider—we are back to our subcontracting discussion —will fall under a duty to comply with the duty of candour and assistance to an inquiry or investigation or any other body, which we have discussed this morning. The intention is to ensure that senior officers cannot evade accountability simply by turning a blind eye to failures to comply with the duty of candour and assistance. The amendment would make them liable where it is proven that they consented or connived in a breach and would close the loophole around responsibility for indirect wrongdoing.

Sir Roger, do you wish me to speak to amendment 33, too?

[The Chair]

Yes. Amendments 33, 44 and 34 are grouped, but you are only moving amendment 27.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

Amendment 33 would place a personal responsibility on the chief officer, or the chief executive of a public authority or corporate body with public responsibility under clause 4, for an offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour or assistance. What is needed is clear personal accountability on the chief officer or chief executive for any failure to comply. That ensures that senior leaders cannot avoid responsibility for breaches within their organisation, and reinforces the expectation that those at the top maintain a culture of openness and co-operation.

[Ian Byrne]

Amendments 44 and 45 go to the heart of what we are trying to do regarding the Hillsborough law, which is about command responsibility. It is about cultural change. I got the briefing note from the Minister, which I am very thankful for, which outlines where we feel the Government are now, but I think there is a debate among many of us about whether we feel that is strong enough. I just want to outline why I feel that, and why I feel that these amendments are worthy of consideration by the Minister.

The duty of candour and assistance applies to both public authorities and individuals. Where the duty falls on an authority, responsibility for compliance and enforcement measures must land on individuals; otherwise, those measures are basically rendered ineffective. The clause 5 and clause 11 offences require intent or recklessness, a concept that is difficult to apply to a legal—rather than natural—person. Where the criminal law has corporate offences, including proof of intent or recklessness, liability is established by attributing the mental state of directing minds to the corporation. That may be appropriate in some contexts, but here, proof of wrongdoing or failure leads only to liability on the authority and a fine paid by the taxpayer. I just do not feel that goes far enough.

The original 2017 Public Authority (Accountability) Bill dealt with that by making the chief officer or chief executive responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. We feel that that is both fair and practical, as it places the responsibility on the person with the ability to ensure that authorities are properly led, and a high hurdle of intent or subjective recklessness ensures that he or she does not get prosecuted for inadvertence, or if he or she is misled by others. That also provides an effective deterrent.

I go back to the fact that we are looking at cultural change here; I feel that understanding that they would be responsible would sharpen their minds. Prosecution of a corporation just means that the taxpayer pays a fine, and we have seen that before, with a slap on the wrist and no cultural change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree. I am absolutely reassured that the Bill, as drafted, does just that. It ensures that there is criminal liability on the head of a public authority to ensure that everything is covered. However, as I have already stated, when something goes wrong in an NHS setting and we know that something has gone wrong but are unable to find out exactly what, despite the head of that NHS trust having all the procedures in place for applying the duty of candour, it would not be fair or reasonable to put criminal sanctions on the head of that NHS executive.

[Tessa Munt]

Is not the point that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, it focuses the mind of chief executives and very senior officers in an organisation if there is the possibility of punishment—of criminal sanction and imprisonment? I take the point made earlier about a fine probably being of absolutely no consequence to an organisation. So often we have heard that what people who have been offended against, in whatever way, really seek is a swift apology and acceptance that something has gone wrong. That is going to come from the duty of candour, but we need to have a sanction available against chief executives and senior officers so that they focus on making sure that their organisations comply and act in an appropriate way.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I genuinely do not think that we have crossed wires here. The intention of the Bill is the same as that of the amendments; it is just about how we are doing this. Our approach holds the heads of authorities and the heads of all public organisations accountable for the things that they can reasonably be expected to do or not do. There is no exemption here: it is about whether they have done it or not, and about what is reasonably to be expected of them. We are confident that such accountability, as drafted in the Bill, will drive positive cultural change. The amendments in this group would unintentionally have the potential to criminalise a chief executive even if they did not have knowledge of the offence being committed and they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the compliance of the organisation. We can find no precedence for such an approach and are deeply concerned that it could have a chilling effect on recruiting public sector leaders.

I reassure the Committee that the Bill ensures accountability right at the top. I am happy to share further information with the Committee, setting that out exactly as it is, and I urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw amendment 27.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you.

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

Q I wish to make a declaration: I am a vice-chair and director of WhistleblowersUK. That is a not-for-profit organisation and I receive no financial recompense for anything that I do.

Thank you to the witnesses. I am very sorry to hear what happened.

Professor Waters: It is still going on.

[Tessa Munt]

I know. I salute your courage. Thank you both for saying what you did. On whistleblowing, what do you feel there might be in the way of protections within this scenario? What protection should there be for whistleblowers?

Professor Waters: Speaking just from my own experience—not as a lawyer or anything—in the last nearly three years since Ruth’s death I have been contacted by various people within Ofsted who shared some really quite disturbing information about its behaviour and its rewarding of certain members of staff who were associated with Caversham primary inspection and other appalling cases. When I have asked if they will speak out, they have said that they do not dare. They have to sign some form of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I have been contacted by numerous headteachers who have been traumatised by Ofsted inspections and have lost their jobs, health and nearly their lives. They have not been able to speak out because they were made to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get some money to support their families.

It just seems that at every level mechanisms are put in place to do the absolute opposite of what inquests and inquiries should be doing, suppress legitimate concerns and defend people who are causing active and ongoing harm. The stronger the defence—the protections—for whistleblowers, the better, and maybe, finally, all the people from Ofsted who have contacted me will be able to go public with the things they have told me.

Deborah Coles: The only thing I would add to that is that, in the context of the Hillsborough law, we are talking about trying to effect legal, cultural and practical change. If we can help rectify the culture of cover-up, obfuscation, denial and defensiveness that occurs when things go wrong—we are talking across inquests and inquiries not only when people have died, but for other injustices—one would hope that that will help victims in the long term, because it will enable honesty and truth telling. Hopefully that will permeate across the system to those who have important evidence to contribute to inquiries and inquests.

[Tessa Munt]

Q We have had the Nolan principles of public life since 1995. If I were to pick out four of those seven principles, it would be: integrity, openness, honesty and accountability. Where are we now with the Bill in comparison with that? What is going to change the culture?

Professor Waters: I have written various messages recently to Martyn Oliver, the chief inspector of Ofsted, quoting those Nolan principles. I have received replies that apologise for his insensitivity and promise empathy. I have not asked for empathy, sensitivity or a performance of those; I have asked for honesty, but that clearly does not work. Ofsted has a code of conduct, which they kept quoting in the inquest, but the coroner clearly found that that code of conduct did not apply. There are the Nolan principles, codes of conduct, accountability hearings, and even an offence of perjury, but none of them seem to work—they are too easy to slip away from. A statutory duty of candour with the possibility of criminal sanctions is sadly what is needed—it beggars belief, but that is what is needed to make public bodies be honest.

Deborah Coles: I think the thing that people find quite shocking when we are talking about the Hillsborough law is that you have to effectively legislate to get people to tell the truth. I support what Professor Waters says about penalties, but is also about monitoring and evaluation, because the Hillsborough law will only be as good as its implementation. As I said, up and down the country, there are families going through legal processes that are so defensive and traumatising that the injustices that you heard expressed today by the Hillsborough families—and you will hear more later—about the lying, victim blaming, delays and denials are still being faced by families going through these processes today. That is why the Bill is so important.

[The Chair]

I call Lizzi Collinge for, I am afraid, what is likely to be the last question on this—we might possibly get a couple more in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I do apologise. It is a pretty strict timetable, but I do appreciate your coming in today. It is a matter of sensitivity and I am trying to give as many people as possible the opportunity to express their views and ask questions. Thank you very much for your attendance, Professor Waters and Ms Coles.

[Tessa Munt]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Is it possible that we can ask witnesses who might have something to add if they can write to you as Chair?

[The Chair]

I think that is automatic. Just let me chair the meeting.

Examination of Witness

Lord Evans of Weardale gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Q I wonder if you can explain what happens. You have had a code of practice for ethical policing in force for a while, and there is the code of conduct and the Nolan principles. What is expected of police officers, in terms of serving the public and not serving their organisation, could not be clearer, yet catastrophe after catastrophe has come to light, and they continue to come to light. If I were a police officer who wished to whistleblow, to whom would I go?

Chief Constable Guildford: You would have a number of opportunities to whistleblow as a police officer or a member of police staff. First and foremost, there are opportunities for you to make a disclosure to your line management. You could make a disclosure to another supervisor. You could also make a confidential disclosure, because each force has a confidential reporting mechanism. It is a reported line, and it is done anonymously.

On top of that, we brought in some measures recently that enable people to make a report via Crimestoppers. We also very actively encourage the reporting of any whistleblowing via all our staff associations—the trade unions on the side of police staff, and the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association on the side of police officers.

[Tessa Munt]

Q Who investigates those allegations?

Chief Constable Guildford: That often depends on who makes the allegation and whether it is criminal or conduct related. If it is a criminal matter, it is reported to a police force or the IOPC. If any criminal or conduct matter is reported and it involves a chief constable, it goes to the IOPC under the law. If it is anybody below that level, it goes to the professional standards department in each of the police forces. It is then independently assessed, and given to an investigator, who is trained and accredited, and independent of the people who are complained about and the complainant.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q I want to put on the record that my brother is a senior police officer in the South Wales police. Chief Constable, can you discuss the practicalities and the impact on policing of the new offences, specifically the new offence of misleading the public? How will it be carried out and how will it be policed? What would the impact be if we removed the harm element of that offence? How would that impact policing?

Chief Constable Guildford: Having been consulted on the way through this, having thought about it quite considerably and having spoken to the director general of the IOPC, I think that the drafting at the moment is pitched at the right level, because it says that that harm needs to be of a serious nature. When it comes to setting out harm, it mentions phrases such as “departed significantly from”.

What will the impact of that be from my perspective? I think it will encourage leaders and individual officers to do the right thing. Initially, it may increase the likelihood that a narrative would be corrected earlier. Think back to some of the foundational pillars upon which this legislation rests, and a lot of the narrative that was, let us say, placed in the public domain around Hillsborough—and sometimes around other events where there is knowledge that is known to the police service and is able to be communicated, but which for whatever reason on occasions is not. Sometimes, in my opinion, that does not help with public confidence.

Going back to the question, I think this will encourage the clarification of issues at an earlier stage. But I suppose, on reflection, from a professional perspective, we have to balance some of that with an individual’s potential reluctance to say too much too early. Of course, the public quite rightly have an expectation that facts will be clarified and that information will be shared and placed in the public domain, and that is absolutely the right thing to do. That is the balancing act. It is important that it is pitched at the right level, which in my professional opinion it is. The “harm” is economic, physical or emotional, and I think it says it should be not inconsequential, which is important. On occasion—you will know this from your family perspective—we absolutely do get things wrong, but the legislation is designed to allow us to correct those things fairly expeditiously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q The Bill’s provisions essentially ask public bodies to ensure just that they are representing themselves in a “reasonable” manner. How would you even begin to advise a public body about what would count as unreasonable versus reasonable levels of representation at an inquest?

Richard Miller: The starting point would be the coroner, who will be a qualified lawyer and therefore very used to making assessments about what is necessarily and reasonably incurred by way of legal expense and legal work. They will be in as good a position as anybody to judge whether what the public body is doing is reasonable. It is a standard part of civil litigation that you have to justify your costs as necessary and reasonable, so it would not be a new requirement; it would just be a new forum within which that requirement was applying. The lawyers advising public bodies would already be well used to identifying what is necessary and reasonable in any given circumstance. Obviously, they will need to calibrate that advice in the light of this legislation, but it is not a new skill—it is a not new judgment that they will have to make. It is something that they already do.

[Tessa Munt]

Q I declared earlier that I have an interest in whistleblowing, and I wondered if I could ask you a question in relation to that. Those who are alive and well who whistleblow against their organisations do not necessarily have the benefit of going into an employment tribunal with any legal assistance. Might the Bill go further in that direction and assist in some way? Very often, those individuals are taking on incredibly large corporations that have ranks of lawyers. Do you have a view on that?

Chris Minnoch: That is not something I have necessarily prepared for, but I appreciate that it is an important point, so thank you for asking about it. For many years now, there has been a deficiency when it comes to employment cases, particularly since the removal of employment law from the scope of the legal aid scheme. As an organisation, it is important to legal aid lawyers and their clients—similarly, from the Law Society’s perspective, I am sure I would not be wrong in saying this—that people taking actions in the employment tribunal or facing proceedings as a result of whistleblowing have access to legal advice and representation. There is a certain element where people who benefit from union membership are partially protected by that or can have resources made available to them, but there is a gaping hole in the legal aid scheme at the moment around employment law and employment cases for employees. We would hope that the Government would consider filling that, because it is a very important point.

[Tessa Munt]

Thank you. I invite you to pass your comments to the Chair in writing at some point, if that is possible, because I do not have time to ask you about that in detail now, but I am very interested in your views.

Richard Miller: I fully agree with what Mr Minnoch has said on that point. The Law Society would also be very happy to provide more detailed views on this issue in due course.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you both for being here this afternoon. The Government recognise that the provisions in the Bill on legal aid provide a significant expansion of legal aid. Can you talk to us about the practicalities of that expansion and say what the system needs to fulfil this commitment in the Bill?

Richard Miller: There are three areas that most need to be covered. First, what is the structure within which legal aid is delivered? We believe that the Bill does not go quite far enough here, in that it provides for legal help—the very lowest level of assistance—to families and it provides for advocacy. In most court proceedings, there is a middle level of legal representation that is provided. We think that level has benefits both for the Government and for the families concerned. For the Government, it provides greater control and greater quality control over the work. For the families—or, more to the point, for the firms representing the families—it means they are able to apply for payments on account in long-running cases, which is crucial to make this an economically viable expansion for firms.

You have to get the structure right in the first place. You then have to build up the capacity and you also have to make it attractive enough overall for lawyers who are not currently doing this work to want to come into it. Those are the three aspects that need to be addressed. Chris, do you want to expand on that a bit?

Chris Minnoch: Thank you, Richard. Minister, it is a very important question. I will start by saying how refreshing it is to come to a session such as this to talk about something positive in relation to the legal aid scheme—a positive expansion—after so many years of giving and submitting evidence to various Committees asking for these sorts of measures to be introduced. I give credit to the campaigning groups that have made this happen and to the Government for taking such a progressive step.

Richard is absolutely right that we have to see the expansion of legal aid in the context of the current civil legal aid system in particular, but you cannot dissociate that from the criminal legal aid system because there is an overlap between the two in terms of who is delivering the service. There are fundamental weaknesses in the sustainability and in the workforce, especially regarding recruitment and retention, that have been recognised by various recent Government-led reviews. There is lots of evidence there and I am sure that, as a Minister, you are fully aware of some of the challenges you face in trying to plug those.

Richard highlighted a really important point about the technical construction of the scheme. We are already in discussions, as is the Law Society, with the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency about how we can improve that structure to make the work as sustainable as possible, and as attractive as possible, both to existing providers and new providers.

There is a really critical element, however, which was raised earlier today in some of the evidence that I heard, about which types of lawyers are best placed to deliver these services. Despite the challenges that the legal aid scheme has faced, particularly in the last 15 years or so, we are really lucky to have a core of incredibly experienced and expert lawyers who carry out this sort of work. Our advice to the Government would be to start there and then look to expand the capacity of those lawyers.

There is an issue around capacity, because inquest work takes such an emotional toll on the lawyers involved. There are elements of vicarious trauma that are involved in these sorts of cases, so it is very difficult for your entire caseload to be inquest work for 100% of your time. There are some natural capacity issues built in, even for lawyers doing that work currently, but those are the organisations—I think one of the earlier witnesses described them as human rights lawyers—where we need to start building up their capacity by making the system as attractive as possible, so that they themselves can recruit and develop the lawyers who can expand this work.

We are also already in talks with the Legal Aid Agency about separating out inquest work from the current categories of legal aid, so it is a separate category of legal aid with its own separate supervisor standards and its own separate accreditation process—those sorts of things. Richard, you might want to address the kind of training, development and accreditation issues arising from that.

Richard Miller: Indeed, yes. We are already having initial discussions with the Legal Aid Agency about what training might be required and whether accreditation would also be worthwhile in this area. The Law Society is well positioned to deliver training at scale, as would be needed here. One thing that we would like to explore is whether there is scope for Government assistance with the cost of that training to ensure that we can get the initial boost to capacity that will be urgently required.

On the question of accreditation, at the moment our preference is not to go that far, because we must be careful not to establish too many barriers to getting that expansion in place first. Down the line, it might be that accreditation would be worthwhile, but initially I think we need to make sure that the training is there and that lawyers are aware of their obligation not to deliver work beyond their competence. That should get the expansion of capacity that we need in the short term that we can then build on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that this will be the last question.

[Tessa Munt]

Q Could you consider the intersection of prevention of future deaths reports with the Bill? Is there anything that should be added to the Bill, or any process that should be changed, to make those reports more effective?

Judge Durran: The Bill includes provisions that a coroner can write a conduct report. It is not clear to me at the moment what the mechanism will be for such a report and how they should be handled. At present, as I understand it, conduct reports raising concerns will be sent to the chief coroner, responses will be sent to the chief coroner, and the chief coroner will account for those within my annual report to the Lord Chancellor. What is not clear to me is the mechanism of how that will happen and whether the intention is, through regulation, to create mechanisms similar to prevention of future deaths reports.

It is important to say that I am not, nor should I be, a regulator. I am sure that many will say that publication of a report and publication of a response without any other mechanism will not achieve much. I am concerned about what those mechanisms are and whether they will fundamentally serve a purpose, or whether I will simply publish them and they will be there for people to see, but no meaningful action will be taken upon them.

[The Chair]

I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of you, so on behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for her evidence.

Examination of Witness

Cindy Butts gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

It would be; thank you.

[Tessa Munt]

Q It is nice to hear you, Cindy.

You referred to the families and an awful lot of individuals who considered that they were really looking forward to you being part of their solutions. Might I ask you to consider something? You were talking about language. I think that what will happen is that every different organisation will create its own code of ethics and own interpretation of the duty of candour. Is there perhaps a place for the Government, or for you and the Government, to work together to make a single version?

I suspect that the public, out there in the real world, will interpret the code of ethics and the duty of candour in a particular way, and will use ordinary language. They will know when it is right and what it is saying, but we might be in terrible danger of local authorities—some of them doing one thing; some of them doing another—and different people interpreting the rules in a particular way.

I recognise the difficulties with Nolan. They have been with us for 30 years, but clearly the Nolan principles have not worked. Is there a possibility of a single framework within which everyone understands what everyone is up to? I say that particularly because in earlier evidence from the chief constable, when he was questioned about various aspects, he thought that it was a brilliant question for other authorities, but not for his.

Cindy Butts: Thank you for that interesting question. The duty will cover hundreds—thousands, probably—of bodies, all with very different roles and remits, so having one coherent framework might be difficult, because each and every one of them needs something that is right for them and that fits the context of the way in which they work and their objectives. That said, there is value in thinking about some overarching principles that certainly ought to apply to how each organisation develops its bespoke framework. First and foremost, however, it must fit in with an overarching set of principles.

That question also points to the issue I raised before, which is about ensuring that victims and survivors are involved in the implementation. I think that they can play a crucial role in ensuring that organisations have a framework that is fit for purpose and that is informed by their lived experience. That would be how I look at it.

[Joe Powell]

Q To go back to your point about coherence, it would be helpful to hear how you foresee your role working with the additional support that will come through this law. Help us understand how it fits together. What does the coherence you might feel is not quite there at the moment look like?

Cindy Butts: I hope that the inclusion of the IPA in law means that organisations understand the IPA’s role of supporting victims, survivors and bereaved families in accessing information and advocating for them for truth—for truth telling. I hope that it is clear that the responsibility of the IPA is to help them to achieve exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q Dr Chopra, there is a challenge in the medical world. For example, you might have a cohort of people who think they are discharging their duty of candour by reporting various things about covid vaccines and the harm they have been doing, which we would not necessarily consider a good-faith disclosure. You obviously have to deal with that all the time when whistleblowers come to talk to you about something in their organisation that is not right, and you have to try to make a judgment. How do you balance the duty to listen to people with recognising that they can, either in good faith or bad faith, report things that are not genuinely a matter of concern?

Dr Chopra: When we approach looking at the duty of candour in regulation 20, we approach it both at the registration phase, when we are registering providers, and at the inspection and assessment stages, which then determines whether we take any enforcement action.

We have an assessment framework that sets out particular questions that we look at when we assess how an organisation is approaching its duty of candour. Within that, there will be policies and procedures that people need to follow. How do they deal with whistleblowers? How do they deal with people who raise concerns? To go back to Helen’s point, how are they ensuring that training is taking place for frontline clinicians, so that they have a mechanism to raise concerns or incidents that might trigger the statutory duty of candour? That is how we look at the overarching policies, processes and procedures that will satisfy us that an organisation is ready to be registered, and that we can look at them when we are going out on inspections. That is how we look at those issues.

[Tessa Munt]

Q I recognise your efforts to try to get this right, but I suppose it is distressing for most members of the public to discover that, with monotonous regularity, people who work within your services can only go to the BBC, so that the BBC can put people in undercover to find out what is going wrong and then produce a programme that everyone gets really upset about. You have had a professional and a statutory duty of candour for some time, and it is all wrapped around patient safety, yet there still seems to be a significant problem.

I have a couple of questions. First, what do you feel you can do to stop the suppression of witnesses? Will the Bill cover that? We know there are legal duties attached to this, but something has to change to stop whistleblowers suffering detriment. I do not know whether you feel the Bill is going to do it, because whatever has been in place for the last 10 years has not done it.

Secondly, the NHS has shown a willingness to accept people who have been recycled from roles in other services, departments and organisations when they might not have been deemed to have succeeded in those roles; they suddenly become chairs of trusts or take other roles in the organisation. There is something not quite right going on, in my opinion—it is my opinion.

Helen Vernon: I will talk to something that we are doing to help with that, at least in relation to the NHS duty of candour. One of the things that we have heard is a barrier to openness is the fear of a subsequent claim. As a public body, we can do something about that, because we can issue guidance to the NHS that debunks it, in essence, by saying, “It’s incredibly important that you put the duty of candour first, that you are open and honest, that you share information when it is available, and that you do the right thing for the patient, regardless of the possibility of subsequent litigation.”

That is one thing that we have been doing. It is a message that we have found it quite difficult to permeate in its totality, bearing in mind that we have clinicians coming up all the time through training, for example. We need to get to people when they are taking on a new role and we need to cover the whole of the NHS, which is evidently huge, but it is certainly something we make a huge effort on, to make sure that we remove barriers where we hear of them.

Professor Fowler: From the NHSE point of view, I would argue that progress has been made but it is imperfect. I accept that point, but I think we have seen evidence of greater levels of transparency, as I said.

Obviously, the Bill will need to interact with existing provisions, such as professional regulatory standards. We have a fit and proper person test that we apply— Arun might want to come on to that, because some of it is done through the CQC. We now have a 10-year plan that commits to radical transparency as part of its aims. Underlying that, in order to drive up quality, there is a commitment to a quality strategy, which we are working on and will look again at assurance mechanisms and how we tidy them up and simplify them to some extent, but also how we improve them.

In making these changes we have to be very cautious to understand, first, why people do not step forward if they do not step forward, and secondly, that we have obligations, for example, to protect patient confidentiality in any information we release, protect our staff, and look at proportionality. I mentioned the volume of papers we have looked at; it is important to understand that there are resource implications for clinicians’ time in responding to some of this. There is a lot of complexity to some of the things we need to look at in making sure there is not a chilling effect and that people are willing to step forward and do not see a potential impediment.

Dr Chopra: Aidan has already mentioned the fit and proper person test, but I want to make a couple of additional points. It is so difficult that we have to legislate for candour, but some of this is about culture in organisations, and there is a way of tapping into looking at an organisation’s culture. We have questions in NHS staff surveys about how confident staff feel about raising concerns, and whether those concerns will be responded to. I find that data is quite helpful to understand a sense of the culture in the organisation.

The other point I was going to mention was about inequalities, demographics and protected characteristics. A great proportion—up to 40%—of the medical workforce in the NHS come from minoritised ethnic backgrounds, and they are often the people who struggle the most to have their concerns raised. They are the ones who are scared of retribution for raising concerns. Tackling that will be a significant factor in making sure that the duty of candour, as it is currently is meant to work, is as successful as we would like it to be.

In terms of how we can measure some of that, my team was able to run about 100 of our recent reports using a large language model in AI to look at duty of candour. When it comes to comparing those providers that were rated “Outstanding” or “Good” with those that were rated “Requires improvement”, an open, transparent culture consistently came up as a likely factor. That is evidence that such a culture is more likely to lead to an organisation that we describe as discharging its duty of candour well. These factors are really important.

On the interplay point that Aidan mentioned, we will have the statutory duty of candour, the professional duty of candour, the provisions of the Bill and the NHS manager’s duty of candour. We have got to make sure that these four pieces of legislation work together.

[Tessa Munt]

Q I recognise the efforts that you are going to at the CQC. I have already declared my interest as someone who has been involved in whistleblowing for 15 years. It is alarming how many relatively senior NHS people end up in employment tribunals because they have been ousted for raising something. That concerns me hugely. I will leave it there, unless you wish to say something.

Dr Chopra: I will briefly come back on that. One of the considerations in the 10-year plan is the role of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which will work more closely with the CQC in time. The HSSIB has what is called a protected safe space, which allows people, without fear of accountability and retribution, to raise concerns. One of the things we are concerned about in the Bill is whether the scope of clause 5(1), on other investigations, will include investigations undertaken by HSSIB when it works closely with CQC. It will be important to protect that space for the reasons you mention.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q First, it is a matter of public record that my husband works for NHS England—for now. I ask these questions as a representative of constituents who have been harmed, including my constituent Vicki, who died, and baby Ida Lock, who died a preventable death. Her death was graded as “Moderate harm”, which was one of the many, many failings that came afterwards. NHS Resolution focuses on resolving issues and harm caused without resorting to legal processes. How will the Bill contribute to that aim?

Helen Vernon: Those are incredibly sad circumstances and sensitive issues. I think it will be a big help and support that aim because, as I mentioned earlier, an open and transparent response right at the start has the best chance of not only avoiding somebody consulting lawyers or initiating a claim just to get answers, but avoiding that claim subsequently escalating into unnecessary and adversarial legal proceedings. We have driven down the number of cases that go into formal litigation by using alternative dispute resolution, which generally involves bringing clinicians and the organisation together with the family. But you can do that only if there is an atmosphere of trust and clear transparency as to the information that is being shared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q But do you accept that, if you do that, a whole series of people will say that WhistleblowersUK, or a whistleblowers office, was not listening to them, not sufficiently representing them and covering up the things they were alleging?

Flora Page: You could easily. I suppose one would seek to front-load the issues. I am not against the provisions of the Bill at all, but what the Bill deals with is after the event: some terrible thing has happened, a large inquiry has been set up and we are having to unpick the fact that people have not told the truth in real time. With something that protected and supported whistleblowers up front, one would hope to be able to bring the problem forward, and have much nimbler and cheaper investigations arising out of whistleblower complaints.

If there were disgruntled people moaning and saying their concerns had not been looked into, let them trundle along and see whether, 10 years down the line, it turns into a big public inquiry; nine times out of 10—or probably 99 times out of 100—it is not going to. My view is that we spend too much money on these public inquiries. We need to find a way to front-load the problem and support people when they first start speaking up, so they feel able to put those problems, first, into the employer domain and then, if necessary, into the public domain.

[Tessa Munt]

Q I want to place on the record that I do not believe I have met Flora before, and am not sure I have met James before, although I have connections with the organisation. However, I have met Ron Warmington before, when I was working with James Arbuthnot. It is very nice to see you again, sir.

Ron Warmington: Likewise.

[Tessa Munt]

You have already referred to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the fact that that puts whistleblowing into the framework of an employment law issue, and the fact that it does not protect against retaliation. The focus then is on a whistleblower proving that they are deliberately being acted against, as opposed to on the wrongdoing done by the organisation in the first place; when they come out of the employment tribunal, they are then very often blacklisted and cannot work again.

Do you feel that the Bill provides enough anti-corruption effort to ensure that, in particular, we could have prevented the Post Office scandal? As I understand it, 47,000 cases are waiting in the employment tribunal at the moment—that is the current backlog. Once this legislation comes into play, my sense is that that 47,000 will escalate beyond belief, but I will leave that with you. Does the Bill go some way to sorting this out?

James Killen: The short answer is no. What strikes me most in the Bill is that it makes the duty of candour an individual thing, and focuses very much on the corruption that goes on at the level of the chief execs. In my mind, and certainly having listened to the health people earlier, the majority of duty holders will be people who are on the minimum wage and potentially part time—what I would class as vulnerable duty holders. Those people are going to be placed in the situation of having to choose between a potential criminal sanction for not exercising their duty of candour and speaking out against a corrupt boss who will potentially pull all the levers they have in the business to destroy their career. They are going to choose between their careers and families or a potential criminal sanction.

For me, the largest omission in this Bill is that there is no form of criminal sanction for interfering in another person’s duty of candour. Culture and so on was talked about a lot earlier, and there is something there—I agree with everything that has been said about the idea of an office for the whistleblower, because I think that would take all of this away, but, if we are speaking about maybe a 60% or 80% solution, some sort of clause in the Bill that gives a criminal sanction to other people within an organisation for interfering with somebody else’s duty would be key.

[Ian Byrne]

Q We are here today for the journey of legislation to stop the culture of state cover-ups in this country. Certainly at the heart of the state cover-up of Hillsborough was the media and the role it played. There was a hugely powerful headline in The Sun by the dreaded Kelvin Mackenzie—“The Truth”—which resonated around the world, shaped the narrative and did so much damage to our ability to get truth, justice and accountability. I have a simple question for Nathan and Jacqui: are there any areas you would both like the Bill to go further with, and if so, where?

Nathan Sparkes: As you point out, there was a phenomenon of police officers briefing The Sun newspaper after the Hillsborough disaster, which was a huge part of the cover-up. Police officers were not the only public officials involved in that; the local MP was, and there is a disputed allegation that a representative of the Thatcher Government was as well. There was a huge amount of public official impropriety in that media cover-up operation. Unfortunately, that is not the only case; after Orgreave, similarly, there was a cover-up perpetrated between public officials and the media.

The history of the phone hacking scandal is a 15 to 20-year series of occasions where overwhelming evidence of criminal activity being carried out on behalf of News UK was presented to the Metropolitan police force, and every time it failed to properly investigate until it absolutely had to. That was during a period where a succession of Metropolitan Commissioners enjoyed excessively close relationships with News UK; it included a time where even an editor for News UK was hired by the Met, and there were records of eight dinners between heads of the Met and News UK editors over that period.

In more recent years, there are allegations that police fed information about the victims of the Manchester bombing to the media. Christine Flack, the mother of the late television presenter Caroline Flack, believes that police were briefing the media in relation to her case. Mazher Mahmood was a News UK reporter, and there is an allegation in a recently published book that the Met protected him from prosecution and exposure during the noughties on account of the closeness of that relationship.

I could give many more examples—I will not sit down and list them all—but the point is that there is a specific and persistent issue with corrupt relationships between public officials and the media. Our concern about this Bill is that it does not have anything substantive to address that. The long title of the Bill is very clear; it will

“require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority”.

Our submission your Committee is that the Bill cannot achieve that unless it also addresses the specific phenomenon of corrupt relationships. Our proposal is that the best way of dealing of that is with a public inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan]

Not at all—I thought it was a good answer.

Flora Page: It is about incentives, isn’t it? The incentives have to be aligned for folk to do the right thing.

Ron Warmington: Yes, we have to get people to make the right decision. They will not do it just because it is the right thing to do. Some people will—even though it is costly to themselves, their careers or their companies, they will do the right thing; I have been brought up with people like that. Other people need to be persuaded to do the right thing by threats or by incentives, or ideally both.

I do not think we can just hope for the best that the ethics of corporate Great Britain and civil service Great Britain are going to change. I mean, I have seen Ministers talk utter nonsense because their civil servants parroted nonsense that was parroted to them by people in the organisations that ought to have been subject to review. I feel sorry for MPs and Ministers in those cases.

Jacqui Hames: It is important to point out that the media companies responsible for the industrial-scale phone hacking saga are corporations. They make a profit or loss, and they hide behind the free speech mantra, but ultimately they are creating a culture where this behaviour is acceptable—where criminality is acceptable. There is no doubt that a whistleblower coming from their side of the fence would be treated extremely badly.

As a victim of phone hacking, as an ex-police officer who had their personal items sold to a news corporation, I know that you have nowhere to go in those circumstances if those corporations are just going to hide behind a freedom of speech defence. It is not freedom of speech to spread misinformation and disinformation that affect the wellbeing of hundreds of people who have already gone through intolerable experiences.

[Tessa Munt]

Q We had a discussion earlier today about whether the powers also cover subcontractors. I think that is probably one of Ron’s questions as well.

Ron Warmington: I have it written down, yes.

[Tessa Munt]

Very good; I did not know that. There are also subcontractors of subcontractors, because it is commonly the case that we are looking not just at the first-tier contractual relationship, but at the second, third and sometimes fourth-tier relationships. There is a question about that.

There is then another issue. Some of you might want to comment on the fact that in March this year—I think I am right in saying this—His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a whistleblower reward scheme for reporting fraud, and on where that scheme might go and how useful it is. I have no idea how successful it has been—I do not have any figures for it—but one senses that it might be successful.

Ron Warmington: In a sense, that is where this all started, isn’t it? I mean, there were defence contracts in the United States and someone thought, “I’m going to blow the whistle on such and such a corporation, which has been ripping off the Defence Department by $100 million. Therefore, I’m going to get something out of it.” Actually, that is quite healthy, until it goes horribly wrong; it is a double-edged sword.

On the point about subcontractors, yes, we felt quite exposed when the Post Office tried to—in fact, did—implement draconian contractual terms. That was extraordinarily risky for myself, and for my fellow shareholders and directors. The only time that we could speak safely was when we had parliamentary privilege in situations such as this one. All the rest of the time, we did not; if we spoke up, we were at enormous risk. That did not stop us, as it happened.

It is not necessarily a good thing to say that an investigation firm such as my own, which is contracted to look into something that is going wrong or that has gone wrong, should be hugely protected in some way, because then it would not be trusted to do the work in the first place. You somehow have to strike a balance between the client relationship—not that the client ever should be the subject of the investigation—and some sort of protection. At the moment, the process does not work. It only worked in this case because we didn’t give a damn. As far as we were concerned, we did not really need the work, and did not need the money and did not mind being fired. But not many firms are in that lucky situation.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q You can give a very short answer to this question, Mayor Burnham. Given the experience that you had with your inquiries into grooming gangs, do you agree that the five local grooming gangs inquiries should have a duty of candour applied to them—which is why I have tabled amendment 3 to the Bill?

Andy Burnham: There is no question about it, those inquiries need to have trust at a local level. I will be open in saying that the failure of some people to co-operate with the inquiries that I initiated to some degree undermines the inquiry reports. I do not think it invalidates them, by any means, because they were hard-hitting reports, but it is right to deal with these things as soon as possible. The Hillsborough story is about not letting things be unresolved for years and not leaving people fighting for years. Deal with them as up front as you can, and as strongly as you can, at the first time of asking. Obviously, if that principle applies to local inquiries and inquiries commissioned by combined authorities, we are more likely to get to the truth more quickly.

[Tessa Munt]

Q Steve, I remember the day you heard the news that there was going to be a proper public inquiry and it was very touching. I am glad that you are here. How do both of you feel about asking people who want to report to go outside of their primary employer, or the organisation for which they work? The Independent Public Advocate, who we have heard from this afternoon, is attached to that point. Do you think there is any value in requiring bodies to report their spending on legal fees and the like related to inquiries, independent panels, or whatever is set up, in their annual report and accounts or in their annual report to council, or whatever it is? Andy, will you answer first? We will then go to Steve.

Andy Burnham: If I can quickly pick up your point, Tessa, I absolutely agree that there should be full transparency on legal expenditure by public bodies, including police bodies and NHS trusts. I think that the lack of a requirement has led to very unfair situations when the state has lawyered up, as I said before. To me, the Bill should create an entirely new regime that does not allow bereaved families to face the full might of the state, when they have barely any legal representation.

[Tessa Munt]

Q My caveat would be that it is not just the state per se; we have heard that there are any number of private organisations that act appallingly—whistleblowers come forward, and we need to catch that in the scope.

Steve Rotheram: I obviously support any whistleblowing protections. Certainly, if there is any enhancement, it should be a requirement for consultation with trade unions when we develop better codes of ethical conduct. There is definitely stuff we can do on that.

We need to empower public servants to foster a culture of candour, and that is why the Bill is so important. Thanks very much, Tessa; I remember you and others, too—it was quite a moment in Parliament. Do not forget that those people have been fighting since we left to get something like this on the statute book. The weight of responsibility on all of you on this Committee is enormous, and I know that you will do well by the families and those campaigners.

Andy Burnham: No pressure.

[Joe Powell]

Q We heard earlier today about the failure of a local authority: the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the Grenfell case. In the brief time that we have, I am interested in how you will both seek to enforce this, if it is on the statute book, in your combined authorities and the local authorities under you, or those that you work collectively with. Do you need anything else included in the Bill? Do you have thoughts already about how you will set up enforcement and monitoring to make sure that it drives the culture change that Steve just talked about?

Andy Burnham: We want to see a change, as advocated by Hillsborough Law Now, with respect to command responsibility, so that the responsibility is not just corporate but individual. Obviously, the Hillsborough story is the failure to go that last bit of the journey towards individual accountability, which I think bedevils the British state still. In all the examples—Grenfell being a primary one, as well as Hillsborough and the Post Office scandal—where is the individual accountability? We would very much endorse what was said to you by Hillsborough Law Now. It is not about a chief executive or chief constable not knowing what is going on underneath; when there is a corporate cover-up, there has to be some individual accountability for that.

It pains Steve and me that we were never able to achieve that in the Hillsborough example. With the Taylor report, the reason the trial of the criminal cover-up collapsed was because those officers gave their false police statements to Taylor, and Taylor was not an inquiry covered by the oath. That is why the courts said that their evidence could not be admitted, and therefore they were allowed to lie and faced no accountability. We would both say that the command responsibility is really important here. We need to start holding people individually to account for the appalling things they subject people to on occasions.

Steve Rotheram: It needs to be strengthened, that’s for sure. That is to ensure that chief officers, chief executives or chief constables—whoever they might be—are personally accountable for crimes. If the Bill ensures that the responsibility sits with those at the top, and those best-placed to effect change, I am fairly certain that they will not want to be that person who is held responsible, and therefore they will change the culture within those organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

Q What impact do you feel the Bill, as drafted, might have on whistleblowers? You mentioned whistleblowers; I have an interest in whistleblowers. Do you feel the Bill has been built to support and encourage whistleblowers generally?

Daniel De Simone: I am more equipped to talk about MI5 and the case that I have been involved with, but whistleblowers are clearly incredibly important in my job. I would want to see every protection for whistleblowers, whereby organisations foster a culture in which whistleblowers feel able to come forward and do not feel that it is harmful for them or damaging to their career. I would obviously encourage anything that can be done to encourage that.

[Tessa Munt]

Q You obviously use the services of whistleblowers.

Daniel De Simone: Absolutely, and I frequently rely on confidential sources, like police officers, who provide me with information that, under the law, they probably should not provide. For example, I have spent a very long time investigating the Stephen Lawrence murder, and that has led to a review to look at whether the case should be reopened. That is a good thing, and the family are very happy with the fact that that has happened, but it simply would not have happened without officers helping me who probably should not be helping me. The fact that they did has led to good things.

[Tessa Munt]

I suspect my colleague is going to ask you about journalism more generally—surprise, surprise.

[Seamus Logan]

Q Daniel, are you familiar with the proposals from Hillsborough Law Now?

Daniel De Simone: I have read their submissions.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are looking at that recommendation. There are significant workforce issues. We are asking our prison officers to work in a system that the prison inspector himself has said is cracking and at “breaking point”, and we must invest in our workforce.

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

The day before Prime Minister’s questions last week, we spent hours discussing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Bearing in mind that there has been such a crash in public trust and confidence, has the Lord Chancellor considered that it might have been better to have referred to the fact that he knew there was a mistaken release of a prisoner in the offing? He might not have been able to give the details, but to restore public trust and confidence, and in light of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, might it not have been better to have said something, and to have held over that decision and said he would come back to the House later with more detail?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise why the hon. Lady, who is very reasonable, has made her comments in that way, but I simply say that we inherited a system in which 17 errors on release are made every single month. There is a data release every July, and I have now updated the House with more information than it has ever had about this issue. I have also been clear, as any Justice Secretary would be, that we are not going to be able to eradicate human error or to get back to historical levels quickly, but I have put in place as much as I can to minimise the risk to the public.

Sentencing Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister, my former Home Affairs Committee colleague, to his place. I urge all Members to support the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), particularly new clause 11 on the suspension of driving licences during bail on driving-related offences, which is a common-sense proposal. I echo her praise of our hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his excellent, passionate and successful campaign on tagging for domestic abuse crimes—a policy that the Government have adopted. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in urging the Government to go further than that by supporting new clause 8, which would make those aggravated crimes.

I tabled new clause 35, which has already received support from across the House, on behalf of the of the Saltern family from my North Cornwall constituency. Their campaign—known as Ryan’s law—was launched a few years ago by Helen and Mark Saltern after their son Ryan was tragically hit and killed by a car after leaving the village carnival in St Teath. The driver did not stop to check on Ryan, administer first aid or even phone the police or other emergency services. Instead, Ryan—a father of one—was left in the road to die. The driver drove into work the next day as if nothing had happened. What punishment was the offender given for that fatal hit and run? He avoided prison entirely and was handed just a four-month suspended sentence by the magistrates court.

The family of course acknowledge that accidents happen, but the driver left a young man dying in the road, did not even give it a second thought as he sped off—too cowardly to do the right thing—and did not spend a single day in prison for his crimes. I cannot imagine the pain that the family must feel. In response to that enormous injustice, they launched their “Ryan’s law” campaign and a petition that received overwhelming national support, reaching 167,000 signatures. Countless other families have been affected by similar cases right across this country.

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

I would like to draw attention to two cases in my constituency, one of which I have spoken about before in this place, in which a lady called Lorraine lost her life. It involved somebody who was driving, possibly while looking at their mobile phone, and again, that person did not go to prison. It is tragic that my hon. Friend’s new clause has to set out things that to most of us would seem absolutely natural. Someone should not have to be told to stop, to report, and to phone the police—to do all those things. I think this new clause is necessary, but it is a terrible shame that we live in a world where people do not think that is the right way to behave.

[Ben Maguire]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a horrible indictment on our society and our country that we have to table such a new clause. Sadly, however, because of the hundreds, if not thousands, of cases such as the one she rightly points out, unfortunately it is necessary.

Mark and Helen Saltern, and their daughter Leanne, have campaigned tirelessly for years on this issue. The family have set up RysHaven, a safe, dedicated space where grieving families of hit-and-run victims can escape to Cornwall to take a moment to breathe, process, and recover from their heartbreaking traumas. New clause 35, would introduce three new aggravating factors to the Bill. It would mean that offenders such as the man who hit and killed Ryan Saltern would have the failure to stop, the failure to administer first aid, and the failure to alert emergency services about the hit and run added as “aggravating factors”, specifically when it comes to sentencing those guilty of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving.

I also support new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). Death by dangerous driving should, of course, result in a lifetime driving ban—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) said earlier, that just seems common sense. I urge colleagues from across this House to support my new clause. This is not just for Ryan and his family; the new clause is for the hundreds of hit-and-run victims across this country. I urge Ministers to hear me, and the thousands of loved ones who are left to suffer such injustice. Please right this gross wrong. If the Government will not accept the new clause tonight, I sincerely hope that they will give it serious consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

18:33

Division 335

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 182

Noes: 311

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to put it on the record that there has unfortunately been a blip on today’s version of the Sentencing Bill’s amendment paper. While I did put my name to several new clauses, I did not put my name to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 or 35.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the facts on the record, so it will now be clear which measures she actually supported, and those to which her name was added in error.

Third Reading

Lasting Power of Attorney

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

Yes, indeed. My constituency office in Leeds North East is trying to compile a list of all the cases that have come to us. Every one of them is different but they all have a common theme: unscrupulous individuals who have taken advantage of a lasting power of attorney in order to gain the donor’s funds as quickly as possible for their own nefarious purposes. That tragedy is part of the ongoing trend of the abuse of older people, which we have to stop. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do just that.

Another victim, Nicola, wrote to me to outline her family’s tragic case. Nicola is not alone when she describes the interaction between banks and prospective attorneys as “a tick box exercise”. In her case, the bank’s representative queried a change to the power of attorney that had occurred a few months earlier. The bank asked only for an affidavit from the solicitor to ensure the capacity of the donor. Later, however, court evidence showed that the solicitor had a conflict of interest in respect of the subject and their business manager.

Around the time of the bank’s involvement, the donor had received a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, which had been confirmed by a CT scan nine months earlier. The donor’s deteriorating health was clear, with the LPA activated on health grounds having been actioned a year earlier. The LPA for finance was invoked following the specialist diagnosis. The donor was isolated, away from her brother, whom she had originally appointed as the attorney to protect her interests. The solicitor removed the safeguard of unanimity without advising her brother until months later, when it was far too late.

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

I understood that someone could execute a power of attorney only if they had capacity, so if there had been a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, that would not have been possible. Am I incorrect?

[Fabian Hamilton]

No, the hon. Lady is not incorrect, but an LPA can be executed in advance of any potential diagnosis. When somebody starts to feel that they are losing the capacity to make financial decisions or decisions about their future health, they can execute the lasting power of attorney to be implemented or actioned once the diagnosis is made or capacity is lost completely or irreversibly. That is my understanding, but I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

The brother was then removed as an attorney two months later when he challenged the withholding of the donor’s income and clawing back of historical expenses. He was replaced by the donor’s accountant.

Nicola told me:

“The donor in this case had a long standing history with the bank both in her personal and business capacity. The bank would have been aware of the manager taking over the management of her personal banking affairs going back years. This may have started as a convenience for the donor, but later became a necessity.”

That partly answers the hon. Lady’s question. Nicola went on:

“This casual arrangement apparently accepted by the bank allowed financial abuse to follow.”

Obviously, in that case, the Office of the Public Guardian did not have a role, although it will later in the story. The business manager and the accountant both admitted in court that they had withheld income from the subject for the preceding year and continued to withhold income until the donor’s death seven years later.

Nicola has rightly called for banks to have annual face-to-face meetings with their elderly clients to establish their ability to manage their affairs on their own without outside influence. Any changes to LPA documents and wills within a year of a diagnosis of a cognitive illness, such as dementia, should also be treated with caution and investigated thoroughly before they are granted.

There is also serious anxiety about this issue within the industry. I have spoken to sources in the Office of the Public Guardian and trading standards who highlighted their concerns regarding the lack of the use of powers and the systemic failure to protect people. An officer with more than 30 years’ experience in trading standards told me that they are seeing the numbers of this type of abuse climb to levels they have never seen before, but they can never prosecute because of the lack of assistance from the OPG.

Furthermore, the officer had suspicions that a certificate provider was selling LPAs for far more than the usual registration fee, but when the evidence started to mount, the OPG and the Competition and Markets Authority failed to provide the crucial information needed to prosecute. I would be keen for the Minister to look into what steps are taken to verify that a certificate provider is genuine and not making profits from its work.

Another experienced officer from the Office of the Public Guardian told me about their utter frustration at the processes. They cited a four-month backlog that is allowing abuse to continue. In a lot of cases, that gives the abuser ample time to move money around to escape justice. When grounds-to-investigate processes begin, they are not acted on for weeks, with timeframes set for investigations only after that has taken place.

OPG staff say that since the introduction of digital applications for LPAs, demand for investigations has increased. They suggested that best practice is for the Court of Protection to give consent if the donor has lost capacity and the attorney wants to gift a substantial amount of money. However, that is being applied inconsistently among banks as there are no regulations that ensure they follow it through, and banks are simply taking an attorney’s word that a donor has lost capacity.

A staff member pointed to declining morale at the OPG because of the rise in cases, with little to no safeguarding training. They even expressed concern about the dehumanisation of the people they deal with. These are some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and some are clearly being coerced or abused.

Members of this House have previously looked closely at the lasting power of attorney. In 2004, the Health Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Incapacity Bill relating to the lasting power of attorney. It recommended that there be clarification of the extent and limitation of an attorney’s powers, as well as adequate guidance and training for donors; that there be further guidance to warn donors of the potential for conflict; and that an additional safeguard be included in codes of practice as a mechanism by which the Court of Protection or the public guardian could monitor the use of LPAs with a view to preventing the abuse and exploitation of an attorney’s powers. It also recommended that an express duty of care should be incorporated into law for attorneys acting under an LPA, in that a greater degree of accountability should be required, with specific requirements in the form of a standard of conduct that should be included in the codes of practice. Attorneys should also be under an obligation to notify the donor, the bank and the public guardian that the donor lacks capacity, or is losing capacity, thereby putting that information on the public record and opening it up to challenge.

I thank the Minister for meeting me earlier this year following the introduction of my Bill. I know that she takes these issues extremely seriously, and I am pleased to see her in her place. I am also grateful to the victim-survivors of this horrendous financial abuse who shared their stories with me. Each story has similar patterns, but each has its own victim who is often coerced and robbed of their life savings and assets.

Finally, I am struck by the commitment of those who have reached out to me. Ending this injustice for other families and vulnerable people is their driving force, and I cannot commend them enough for their selfless and committed campaigning on an issue that could impact any single one of us. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Work of the County Court: Government Response

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we have to finish the statement at 1.50 pm. Anyone who wishes to speak, please bob—including the Minister, if she wishes to ask a question. Please keep comments short, and Members can only ask one question.

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

The report to which the Government are responding outlines that the county court is in complete crisis. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, the county court is where the majority of our constituents will encounter the justice system, and it is the Cinderella service of the justice system. Does he agree that it is under pressure and experiencing significant operational problems, that the state of disrepair of the buildings is absolutely emblematic of a system that is completely in crisis, and that more must be done to repair and reinstate these buildings? It is totally unfair that we should ask court staff, be that the judiciary or the staff who back up the judges, to work in those circumstances. It is appalling.

[Andy Slaughter]

As I think I set out in the statement, there are problems all along the line. There are problems with representation. There are problems with access. There are problems with systems remaining on paper when they should have been put online long ago. It might therefore be thought that the physical state of the buildings is a lower priority. In reality, it is not, because it affects recruitment and the efficiency of the court, and it means that, over a period of time, courts become toxic places to work. That is why I went out of my way to praise the court staff, because they are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. None of us wants to work in a sick building.

I hope that the Government will address this, and that we will find out how much capital money is going to the county court. The Minister may be able to tell us that to today. Certainly, the problem has to be tackled. That is true in the magistrates and Crown courts as well, but particularly in the county courts.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences. The criminal courts of England and Wales are under very significant strain. That is translating to very long delays from early hearings in criminal cases to the hearing of trials. I was at my local Crown court a couple of weeks ago and the delay there was at least 18 months. It is as bad or worse elsewhere.

That delay is not just an administrative problem; it has real, human consequences. It means a longer wait before a victim of crime or a witness in criminal proceedings can see the case resolved and move on with their lives. Of course, the longer it takes to get to trial, the harder it is to remember detail and to give the best evidence possible. For a defendant—and it is worth recalling that not every defendant is found guilty—the case continues to hang over their head along with, in some cases, the threat of potentially losing their liberty. A defendant in custody awaiting trial adds to the pressure on the prison population for longer than they should if the eventual outcome of their trial is acquittal or a non-custodial sentence. We can see that in the statistics: remand prisoners made up 11% of the prison population in 2018 but that figure was up to 20% in 2024.

There are other consequences of long periods on remand. Remand prisoners are not convicted so no work is done on their rehabilitation in prison. Time spent on remand counts towards an eventual prison sentence but spending longer on remand means a greater proportion of the eventual sentence—in some cases, the majority of the sentence that is ultimately handed down—is served without any rehabilitative work being done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Substantial periods on remand also mean that there are more cases where a custodial sentence is imposed at the end of it but the whole sentence has already been served on remand, so the offender is released immediately after the trial. That can be hard to understand and accept for victims and the public, who have to watch that offender walk free from court despite their conviction.

Long delays in the criminal courts should worry us all. They certainly worry the Government, who have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, a very senior and experienced judge, to review the operation of the criminal courts and recommend improvements. Part 1 of his review was published on 18 June and deals with the policy changes that he believes may improve the situation. I have no doubt that Ministers will have been considering those recommendations carefully and will take up some or all of them, but we in Parliament should consider them carefully too. That is why I sought this debate.

I have worked with Sir Brian in a variety of roles and have huge respect for his insight and judgment. The report that he published is 378 pages long; I cannot do justice to all of it in this debate—you will be grateful to hear, Mr Efford—but I do want to say something about his analysis of the problem and some of his solutions.

First, I will discuss the problem and the reasons for it. Those interested only in political attack lines will always be able to find them, but this issue deserves deeper analysis. Of course more resources will be important, and Sir Brian makes that clear, but previous reductions in funding can be at least partly explained by periods of reduced demand. The number of cases received by the Crown courts fell, for example, during the nine years I was in government from 150,000 in 2010 to 102,000 in 2019. The open caseload, which is the number of cases begun in the Crown court but not yet completed, fell from 55,000 in 2014 to 33,000 in 2018, but it has increased significantly since, standing at a historical high of 75,000 in 2024. As Sir Brian set out in his review, there are many reasons for that.

It is true that the system has not yet entirely recovered from the covid pandemic, but the other reasons are more structural. Central among them is that the type of cases being heard matters as much as the overall number of cases. The criminal courts are now hearing a greater proportion of cases involving sexual offences or fraud, which are more complex and take longer to resolve, so the length of the average Crown court trial has doubled between 2001 and 2024. The complexity of trials has also been increased by the greater volume of digital evidence, including from mobile phones.

All of that leads Sir Brian to conclude that we cannot go on as we are, and I think he is right. We all know how difficult it will be for the Government to find significant extra resource for the criminal court system. Even if they could, it would not be enough to address the very different workload and ways of working that the system now deals with so, as Sir Brian urges us, we should look at structural change. As I said at the outset, his review makes many recommendations that I do not have time to discuss, but I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, will look carefully at his proposals to end release under investigation instead of bail, which I think is sensible, and the increased standardisation of out-of-court disposals.

I want to focus on Sir Brian’s recommendations in three areas. The first is how we can encourage guilty pleas, where they are appropriate, to be entered earlier. If a guilty plea is how a criminal case should and will be resolved, the earlier it is given the more quickly victims and witnesses can be reassured that they will not need to relive their experiences by giving evidence, and the more quickly valuable and scarce court time can be allocated to other cases, so that is a change worth pursuing.

Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know that there is only so much we can do to persuade a guilty defendant to plead guilty—some will always hold out until the day of the trial in the hope that the witnesses against them fail to turn up; I am afraid that delays in hearing the trial make that more likely—but Sir Brian makes three recommendations in particular that might help. Those recommendations are that the discount on sentence for an early guilty plea should be increased from one third to 40%; judges should give defendants more information on what their sentence may be if a guilty plea is forthcoming; and the plea hearing should be delayed to allow defendants to receive fuller advice before entering a plea. I suspect that the first two will receive the most attention, but I believe the third may have the most effect.

Making sure that defendants know how much shorter their sentence may be if they plead guilty rather than are found guilty, and increasing that difference with bigger discounts for early guilty pleas, may well change some minds, but must not and is not intended to constitute inappropriate pressure to plead guilty when not guilty. Defence advocates, of course, have a clear professional duty to advise their clients not to plead guilty if they do not accept their guilt, but discussions between defendants and their advocates about the evidence and the law are very often constrained because they happen only at court on the morning of the trial. It is often that that truly restricts the prospects of realistic pleas at an earlier stage, so allowing more time for that advice to be given is vital.

Such advice has to be accompanied, though, by changes that will make it more likely for that extra time to be productively used. If, as I hope they will be, the Government are attracted to the idea of delaying plea hearings for that purpose, it will also be important to ensure that advocates are properly incentivised, including through fee structures, to conduct conferences with their clients in advance of the plea hearing. Where the client is in custody, allowing access to the client—preferably in person, but via video link if not—must also be made easier than it is now, or appropriate advice will not be delivered early so that appropriate pleas can be delivered early.

It is also worth saying again—these points have been made many times by many people, as the Minister knows—that early advice on the prosecution case and the available defences cannot be given if the prosecution evidence has not been served on the defence in time to allow it to be properly considered. Late disclosure by the prosecution remains a fundamental problem, as does the timely production of defendants in custody at court.

The second area of Sir Brian’s review I want to focus on is the proposed rebalancing of work between the Crown court and the magistrates court. It is important to recognise that, as Sir Brian points out, the bulk of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates already—around 90%, in fact, with only 1% of criminal cases being resolved by jury trial. Nevertheless, because a magistrates court trial is both quicker and cheaper than a jury trial in the Crown court, it makes sense in resource terms to shift the balance further in the direction of magistrates where there would be no injustice in doing so.

Sir Brian suggests that that can be done in a number of ways. Some are fairly straightforward: for example, we could increase the financial threshold for trials of criminal damage cases in the magistrates court from £5,000 to £10,000. Of perhaps more significance from a policy perspective is the suggestion of removing the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court and replacing it with a permission to appeal process, and that of removing the right to choose a jury trial altogether for offences with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. In the circumstances, I have no substantive objection to any of those proposals, but in relation to the last of them, I invite Ministers to consider the discrepancy it would create between, on the one hand, trials of offences for which sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment could be imposed taking place in magistrates courts and, on the other, sentencing powers for magistrates remaining limited to 12 months’ imprisonment, which Sir Brian does not seek to change.

I am sure that Ministers will also want to factor in the capacity of magistrates courts to do the extra work, as there is a backlog there too, and consider whether a neater way of rebalancing the caseload towards magistrates courts would be the reclassification of some offences as summary only. They will also want to factor in, of course, the need to ensure that lay magistrates have access to good-quality legal advice when hearing cases.

On changing access to jury trial, the important point is an obvious one, but one that is worth making for context. As things stand, not every criminal charge entitles a defendant to a jury trial. We already restrict the right to jury trial, so this debate is about moving the threshold for eligibility for jury trial, not about abandoning a principle of jury trials for all.

I should say that I have great faith in the jury system. I have sought to persuade juries for the prosecution and for the defence in Crown court trials, and I have heard many jury verdicts, and I have retained throughout my confidence that, in general terms, this is a good system for determining guilt or innocence. However, that does not mean that we should refuse to contemplate any change or to recognise the pressure on jury trials for some of the offences that occupy large amounts of court time.

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

I just wondered whether I might pose the fact that the backlog has been created and exacerbated by problems in the criminal justice system, and that it is certainly nothing to do with the time a jury trial takes to be completed. Jury trial has been statistically proven to be fairer to ethnic minorities and people who are more vulnerable. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not therefore agree that jury trial is definitely the way we should go in some cases? I accept his point that not every case has the right to go to jury trial.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort.

The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.

[Tessa Munt]

The point I would make, of course, is that a jury is free, and paid judges are not. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any observation to make about that? The cost is a problem, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

To accentuate that point in particular, as I understand it we are waiting still for the independent body to make recommendations on barristers’ fees. That was a key commitment to ending the strike which has yet to be implemented. Would my hon. Friend agree that needs to be sorted out as well as the fees for expert witnesses, who will not work to legal aid rates? Both of those contribute to delays and to the fraying of the legal structure when people walk away, as she says.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is really important to put that on record as something that also needs to be addressed, and all of those elements that contribute to exacerbating backlogs and professionals walking away from their service.

Types of and methods for presenting evidence have developed massively with new technology, but our courts have somehow served as time capsules and not kept up with innovation. The growing backlog in our criminal courts is also directly exacerbating the crisis of prison overcrowding. Remand populations continue to rise, now accounting for over one fifth of the entire prison population. That is not sustainable and nor is it just. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam made a very valid point that while people on remand are in prison awaiting trial, they are not having the rehabilitative programmes that could prevent them from reoffending.

We need to be clear where the fault for this lies. Years of poor governance have led to chronic under-investment in and neglect of our nation’s courts and justice infrastructure. The fact that one of the Labour Government’s first actions last year was to implement an emergency early release scheme to create space in our prisons is something that those on the Conservative Benches should apologise for. They ignored the crisis for far too long and left it for the incoming Government to clear up. It was under them that the backlog ballooned, that busy Crown courts such as the one in my constituency of Chichester were closed, and that staff shortages persisted.

The hole that our justice system is in is a deep and worrying one. It is therefore right that an independent, innovative and external review into the system by the well-respected Brian Leveson was commissioned. The first half of the report has provided some interesting ideas to address many of the issues outlined, and it will certainly create debate on what can be done. Responding to the headline suggestions—I am not going to cover all 45—about the Crown court bench division and reductions in trial by jury, the Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned by any impingement on the right of individuals to face trial by jury in a Crown court. That right is a cornerstone of the judicial process which, as has been set out in a number of reports, has been proven to be non-discriminatory and multiracial. That diversity cannot be guaranteed if trials are increasingly presided over by judges alone.

The Government’s efforts to implement the necessary reforms to the courts system to address the untenable backlog should be centred on the principle of ensuring that justice is delivered fairly and without discrimination. The removal of the right of individuals to trial by jury would undermine that aim, reducing the likelihood of both victims and defendants receiving a fair hearing, and therefore should be firmly opposed. As many Members acknowledged, including the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), there is no robust argument that the removal of trial by jury would make a significant difference to the backlog. I wait to be convinced, if the Government decide to take that recommendation on board. That is not to say that the issues surrounding the processes of trial by jury should not be addressed.

As outlined in the Leveson report, the increasing length and complexity of trials is having a serious financial and mental impact on jurors. However, that must not be utilised as an argument to undermine the right to a fair trial. Instead, jurors must receive financial support and appropriate wellbeing services throughout proceedings. I have been contacted by many constituents who were keen to play their part in the justice system and do their jury service, but the financial burden, especially for those who were self-employed, had a huge impact on their livelihoods.

Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the potential impact of the proposed Crown court bench division on the workload of magistrates who would be drawn in to operate those courts. Attempts to mitigate the severe backlog in the Crown courts that exacerbate the backlog in the magistrates courts are clearly an undesirable outcome. The Magistrates Association states that implementing the recommendations would require an increase in the number of magistrates required. The creation of an intermediate court would therefore jeopardise magistrates’ current ability to deliver swift justice. That is particularly concerning for survivors of domestic abuse who already face distressing delays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.

The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am content to give way, but I am conscious of time, so this may have to be the last intervention.

[Tessa Munt]

I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

My hon. Friend is spot on.

The second aspect of the Hillsborough law would put that new legal principle of truth into practical use by requiring public authorities, public servants and corporations proactively to assist investigations, inquests and inquiries, and providing a legal toolkit to help families and others to make them comply.

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

I wish to make it really clear that I am vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a non-profit-making organisation set up to protect whistleblowers. Nothing should slow down the promised Bill, and it is essential that those who hold public office are held fully accountable. If we are to prevent the now constant stream of scandals that blight so many innocent lives, we must not overlook the fact that the people involved in Hillsborough and every similar scandal speak up, but the system lets them down. Will the Minister address directly the fact that, as part of the important new Hillsborough law, the Government should commit to protect those who exercise their duty of candour from retaliation by also committing to the introduction of an office of the whistleblower?

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

When the Victims’ Commissioner, the London Victims’ Commissioner and those who engage and support victims through victim services tell me that we have to take this opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform, because we are letting victims of crimes down, I take that more seriously than any other pleas for change. It is absolutely obvious that the delays from running a system with such record and rising backlogs and the failure to invest have real consequences for people’s lives. People are pulling out of the system and out of the process because they have simply lost faith in it. I will be thinking of their voices—of the victims—every day that we consider these proposals and drive them forward. Failure is not an option.

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

I have caution about stripping back jury trials, so I ask the Government to commit to tackling court backlogs by investing in more court capacity, particularly in Bristol and the west country, by supporting rehabilitation to stop reoffending and people coming back into the system so quickly, and by addressing the root causes of crime. Will the Minister consider that under the Leveson proposals, there may be space for some of the best examples of the US courts system? Some states have next-day hearings for domestic abuse cases, where courts can catch perpetrators in the window of remorse, when they will recognise their guilt and accept that they need to change.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is right that as we take forward and are ready to announce the package of reforms in response to Sir Brian’s review, we will consider how we can take forward the best of our existing system and, indeed, learn from other systems. Whether that is intensive supervision courts, where we have seen some good results, or tackling the root causes that lie behind crime and engaging in preventive measures, we should be doing all that. This is our opportunity. We have reached a point of crisis. We have reached the point of emergency—no more, no less—as a result of the inheritance from the previous Government, but we have got to take the opportunity to build back better, with a more sustainable and more innovative justice system that the public can have confidence in and that protects the public. That is what we must do. The hon. Member is right: we should learn, we should listen and we should build something better.

ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. I understand that there will be interventions, but I exhort Members to keep them very tight. The Minister has kindly and charitably said that he will take 10 minutes, which gives us until 11.20 am for other Members, who should bear that in mind with good faith. As is the convention, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending in the prison system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I think we all accept that our prison system faces significant challenges, including poor rehabilitation, high reoffending rates, overcrowding, limited resources and prisoner numbers that have doubled over the last 30 years and now exceed 87,000. The Minister will know that recent estimates suggest that prisoner numbers could surge to almost 100,000 by the end of next year.

In preparing for this debate, I drew on a number of publications with which the Minister will be familiar, but it is noteworthy that many of the studies were undertaken by those with links not only to justice but to the Home Office, the police, health and social care, planning, education, social equality and good government.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I have spoken to people who found out in prison that they have neurodiverse conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which I also have. If they had been supported at school, things would have been different. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to roll out universal screening for all neurodiverse conditions at primary school level?

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree more; that might help us to understand the interaction between behaviour and authority.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and she is right to raise this issue, which is very prevalent in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of specialist staff and training in adult ADHD, which is becoming a bigger part of the conversation. More needs to be done to rehabilitate in a certain way to ensure that prisoners are in a position to learn. Does the hon. Lady agree that, specifically for adult ADHD, the Government need to allocate more to training to ensure that prison staff are equipped to support people in prison settings who have ADHD?

[Tessa Munt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will come to that in a moment.

The impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending sits at the junction of many different interests. It seems likely that supporting people with ADHD could be a critical part of delivering the Government’s aim of rebuilding confidence in the criminal justice system. There is a clear link between ADHD and contact with the criminal justice system, and ADHD is significantly over-represented in prisons. While just 3% to 4% of people in the general population are currently identified as living with ADHD, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that the proportion is up to 25% in the prison population. Up to a quarter of people in prison are living with ADHD, but studies show that 41% of women in UK prisons meet the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Prisoners often leave the prison system with just one week’s worth of medication, and they then have difficulty getting back into the healthcare system. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a holistic approach to the Probation Service that co-ordinates the health and social care system to act as a bridge between the criminal justice system and wider community services?

[Tessa Munt]

Indeed, I do agree. Our interaction with the NHS needs to be far better. I will come to that later.

In December 2020, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice took the important step of commissioning an independent review into neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. The review was led by the chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor; the chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell; and the chief inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Thomas Winsor. The resultant report concluded that when ADHD goes unrecognised or unsupported, the cycle of

“crime, arrest, court, prison, probation and reoffending”

will repeat itself. That is likely to be because the root cause driving that cycle of constant repetition is not currently being addressed in a structured or uniform way in the criminal justice system.

According to the report, the identification, support and management of neurodiverse individuals, including those with ADHD, is “patchy, inconsistent and uncoordinated”. It exposed

“serious gaps, failings and missed opportunities at every stage of the system.”

To put it simply, the report identified that the system was not adequately supporting neurodiverse individuals.

There are many elements of the prison environment that can cause distress to neurodiverse people, including busy and noisy wings, cell-sharing and frequent changes in daily routine. There is no consistent approach to screening for ADHD across prison services, and no single screening tool is used as a standard across the system. The lack of consistent screening means that people who come into the system with ADHD are not identified in a timely manner, or indeed at all.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a real problem with data collection, which means that the extent of the problem in our prison service is not known? We experience that problem in Northern Ireland, and I am sure it is the same across the United Kingdom.

[Tessa Munt]

Indeed, there is no consistent data collection. That is a problem not only in Northern Ireland, but in England and Wales, which the debate is primarily about. If someone is identified and diagnosed, it can be hard for them to access the right care and support due to fragmented care pathways. That is compounded by limited awareness and understanding of ADHD in the prison services.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I think all Members present will have heard from desperate parents whose children cannot get the ADHD medication that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scandalous failure to provide care sets those children up to fail and that, tragically, the consequences are that some end up as the offenders we are discussing, instead of fulfilling their full potential?

[Tessa Munt]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. His point is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance): the earlier we screen, the better we will be able to understand how people learn. In the long run, if life is not education, I do not know what it is—I am sure the Minister will have some sympathy with that point, because he and I both served on the Education Committee between 2010 and 2015. We need to make sure we have far better screening so that people can understand how both young and older people learn. We should never finish learning.

The report observed that only 24% of prison staff had received some level of training about neurodiversity. I accept that that was back in 2021, but I doubt it is much different now. A basic level of awareness of neurodiversity and the needs of neurodiverse people was lacking among frontline staff. The lack of training, combined with staff shortages in prisons, can impact the management of neurodiverse prisoners. Those working in prisons must be able to recognise that the behaviour of some prisoners may be linked to ADHD, and a lack of training for those in mental health teams can result in misdiagnoses or suboptimal treatment. There is an ongoing need to better embed training for prison officers and extend the establishment of neurodiversity support managers across prisons in England and Wales, as mentioned earlier.

The structural changes that are taking place in NHS England, which has commissioning responsibility for offender health services, might provide an important opportunity to consider some of the challenges, and to develop new models for supporting people with health and care needs to access the right care and treatment in the community. That is particularly important where an unmet need has the potential to have a direct impact on an ex-offender’s likelihood of reoffending. Will the Minister outline the measures that are currently in place, and what he plans to offer, in the way of support and continuity of care for neurodiverse prisoners after their release, particularly in healthcare settings?

The Ministry of Justice’s cross-Government neurodiversity action plan, published in 2022 in response to the independent review, was a step forward in the official recognition of the unmet need around neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. Some promising steps were taken to advance the commitments in the plan, such as the recruitment of more than 100 neurodiversity support managers in prisons and the roll-out of neurodiversity training in some settings. But data remains insufficient and fragmented, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, and that poses challenges to the effective assessment of the impact of interventions. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to monitor the number and availability of neurodiversity support managers in prisons across the country, and what measurements are being used to assess the impact of their work?

It is important to keep up the momentum behind the neurodiversity action plan. However, the 18-month review and update committed to under the action plan, which was due in early 2024, has not been published. I would be grateful for further details from the Minister on his plans to continue the implementation of the neurodiversity action plan. Will he outline what steps were taken last year and will be taken to implement the plan? When will the 18-month review, which was due in early 2024, be published?

The ADHD taskforce was established in 2024 and recently published an interim report on the state of play in ADHD care, with its final report due this summer. The taskforce has taken a cross-Government approach, rightly recognising criminal justice as a key focus. The taskforce interim report highlights a number of important and pressing issues, particularly the need for better data to understand where and how people with ADHD are interacting with public services; the relationship between education, health and wider support in relation to outcomes for people with ADHD, including contact with the criminal justice system; and the value of earlier intervention.

What steps have the Government taken and will they take to engage with the ADHD taskforce and wider stakeholders to address the barriers and implement the recommendations highlighted in its interim report and forthcoming final report? Many reports show us that people with ADHD are more likely to struggle with impulse control, emotional regulation and memory recall. We understand that those behaviours can lead to early school expulsions, unstable employment and contact with the criminal justice system.

Once someone is in the system, ADHD can affect how they interact with the police, legal advisers, the judiciary, court staff and probation officers. That can increase exponentially the risks around unreliable statements, misunderstood behaviours and disproportionate sentences. Responses to their environment can lead neurodiverse people to exhibit challenging behaviour that could result in their being disciplined or sanctioned, and affect their engagement or consideration for rehabilitation programmes.

Other reports, such as that published in December 2024 by Takeda, on reforming justice and tackling the unseen challenge of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system, have concluded that there is a need to reassess our approach to managing offenders and consider more innovative ways to interrupt the cycle of reoffending. That includes better approaches to addressing the unmet needs of neurodiverse individuals, where conditions such as ADHD may have a direct impact on offending. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the challenges, criminal justice services should adjust the way people with ADHD are managed, to improve rehabilitation and reoffending outcomes?

Will the Minister address the matter of women who meet the criteria for ADHD in prisons? ADHD in women is often misdiagnosed or missed altogether. Women are more likely to mask symptoms, presenting as anxious, depressed, having eating disorders or as emotionally distressed. That means that for many women and girls their ADHD is often diagnosed late or not at all. More work is needed to understand the experience of women in the criminal justice system who have ADHD. They are likely to experience multiple barriers and may be impacted by co-occurring mental health issues or other disadvantages. For example, one in three women in prison self-harms—the rate is eight times higher than that on the men’s estate—and there is a strong correlation between ADHD in women and self-harming.

These issues are directly relevant to the Government’s wider ambition to reform the way female offenders are managed in England and Wales, including the intention to close one women’s prison and increase the management of female offenders in the community. That in part recognises that many women are imprisoned for lower-level offences. For example, in 2023, theft from shops was cited as the most frequent offence committed by female offenders, accounting for 40% of women’s prison sentences shorter than six months.

Evidence also demonstrates that the incarceration of women can have a broader impact on families and children. Many women are primary carers, and their imprisonment can result in children being displaced, amplifying cycles of trauma and disadvantage over the generations.

The establishment of the Women’s Justice Board presents an opportunity to address these issues, so will the Minister outline whether the board is currently considering neurodiversity and the impact of ADHD on women in prison within its remit? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that ADHD is meaningfully embedded and accounted for in the work of the board in order to ensure that the experiences of women with ADHD in the criminal justice system are a priority? The Government have stated an ambition to address the challenges of prison capacity and to shift the approach taken to women offenders. It is important to recognise that ADHD screening, a coherent care pathway and improved awareness and training in prisons could play a part in achieving that ambition.

In summary, my current membership of the Justice Committee and my membership of the Education Committee during my service here between 2010 and 2015, along with my meeting experts in ADHD and criminal justice more recently, has emphasised to me the need to take a different approach to identifying and supporting neurodiverse prisoners to help those individuals to make new lives and thereby to help the Government to make sure that prison is effective and efficient at turning prisoners’ lives around.

A new campaign focusing on the unique experience of neurodiverse individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system explores evidence-based opportunities to improve support and outcomes. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of that campaign to discuss the challenges facing individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system and the steps that might be taken to meet people’s needs and improve outcomes in relation to rehabilitation and reoffending? I have asked a number of questions, which I provided to the Minister and his team. I recognise that he will not necessarily be able to answer eight questions right now, but would he possibly give me the honour, first, of a meeting and, secondly, of a response to my questions?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a complete joy to serve when you chair, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to respond to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to set out this very important matter. I will do my best to answer her eight questions.

I thank all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, for their considered contributions to today’s debate. This has been a measured and helpful discussion underscoring the importance of recognising and responding to the needs of neurodivergent offenders, including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There is a huge prevalence of neurodiversity in our prisons: studies have estimated that at least half of the offenders in our jails have some kind of neurodivergent need, though the figure is likely to be even higher, with about a quarter of prisoners thought to meet the ADHD diagnostic criteria. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, NICE calculates that figure as up to 25%, including 41% of women. As the inspectorates have highlighted, for these offenders prison can be particularly difficult and distressing, leading to challenging behaviour that could result in their being unnecessarily sanctioned or disciplined.

Prison is rightly first and foremost a punishment, but it must also reduce reoffending. Offenders deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around so that they can play their full part in society on release. We need to make better citizens, not better criminals. Above all, we want to ensure that every offender gets the rehabilitation they need to protect the public. That relies on ADHD and other neurodivergent needs being picked up quickly, and on offenders getting the support that they need so that they can engage with support, treatment and education. There is a great deal of good work already under way.

I will answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. On what measures are currently in place and what we plan to offer in way of support and continuity of care to neurodiverse prisoners on their release, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly identified the key role of probation. There is guidance and training for probation staff to help them to understand ADHD, how needs can look different for different individuals, and that some needs are not visible. Probation staff are skilled at taking a strength-based approach in assessments for pre-sentence reports and sentence plans. Together, that can help our practitioners to adapt the work they do with offenders, whether that is in a one-to-one context, such as supervision appointments, in group settings in a behaviour programme, or in unpaid work placements.

In addition, the Probation Service has commissioned neurodiversity specialists in five probation regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, the west midlands, the south-west, and Wales. Those services offer direct support to people who are diagnosed with or suspected to have a neurodivergent condition; supporting engagement with their orders or licences, they provide briefings to probation staff designed to help them to identify factors that may be related to neurodivergent conditions, and give guidance on how best to support the rehabilitation of these individuals.

The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about neurodiversity support managers. We have neurodiversity support managers in all our public prisons, and they have a whole-prison approach to neurodiversity. That includes: improving processes to identify and support prisoners with neurodivergent needs; providing training and guidance for prison staff; and ensuring that neurodivergent prisoners can access education, skills and work opportunities within the prison.

Neurodiversity support managers also ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to prison environments to make them more supportive of neurodivergent needs. They are frequently recognised in His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons reports for their positive impact in prisons, with recent reports from HMP Kirklevington Grange and HMP Warren Hill highlighting their support for prisoners as an example of good practice.

The 2021 joint inspectorate neurodiversity review of evidence, which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills cited in detail, suggested that at least 50% of prisoners have a neurodivergent need, although many will not be diagnosed. In response to the review, the previous Government published a cross-Government neurodiversity action plan in July 2022, with updates in the January and September of 2023. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we will publish a final update to the action plan later this year, which will respond directly to the joint inspectorate’s report and set out a cross-system strategy to further improve outcomes for neurodivergent people, building on the vital work of the ADHD taskforce.

I welcome the publication of the ADHD taskforce’s interim report. It is a timely and important piece of work that outlines the systemic challenges in ADHD services across the country and sets out both short and long-term recommendations to improve support for people with ADHD. Many contributions made by Members highlighted the issues in other services, which is why the report is important. I am grateful to colleagues across Departments who have worked collaboratively to shape the recommendations.

The report rightly makes clear that no single Department can resolve the challenges alone. ADHD, when left unsupported, can lead to a cascade of negative outcomes: school exclusion, unemployment, substance misuse, involvement in crime, and, tragically, sometimes suicide. We will continue to work with the taskforce and together across Government to achieve the report’s aims.

In youth justice, youth offending teams are increasingly tailoring interventions to children’s specific needs, including those with neurodiverse conditions, with 95% of practitioners reporting that assessments and planning now take into account individual vulnerabilities. Where children are detained in youth custody, all children receive a comprehensive health assessment that screens for a range of needs, including mental health and neurodiversity when they first arrive. All education providers across the three public young offender institutions also have a special educational needs co-ordinator who, in collaboration with NHS England, conducts assessments for children who may have undiagnosed needs, including ADHD. We are having a roundtable later today with education providers to look at alternative education providers outside of the youth justice estate to look at ways of bringing their expertise into the youth custody system so that we can learn from others and improve the way we do business in the youth custody service.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) drew attention to focusing on and analysing needs. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service takes a needs-led approach to supporting people in prison, including those with ADHD. This ensures that needs are identified as early as possible so that appropriate reasonable adjustments and support are provided throughout custody. To improve current screening processes, HMPPS is procuring a new needs assessment tool. I am pleased to confirm that Do-IT Solutions has been awarded the contract for this tool, which will be introduced as part of the new prisoner education service. The tool will identify individual strengths and additional learning needs, including those associated with autism spectrum conditions and ADHD.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the tool be used for every entrant to the prison estate or is it for those who might be suspected of having some sort of neurodiversity?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My understanding is that it will be, but I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm the details.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), data on prisoners with ADHD may be held locally by prison healthcare providers, but is not held centrally by NHS England. Where it is known, 55% of prisoners who took an initial assessment via the prison education service and then enrolled on a course had a learning difficulty or disability. We continue to work to improve our data collection and information sharing. This includes plans to integrate screening results and any information relating to additional need into digital learning and work plans to support prisoners’ education, skills and work progress through custody. But this area needs more work.

On the issue of women, the Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson, leads on the Women’s Justice Board—indeed, he chairs it. It is a passionate area of interest for him and the Lord Chancellor. I will write to Lord Timpson to flag the issue of ADHD, but I am sure it is already on his radar and in his work plan. If it is not, it will be soon. There is a neurodiversity support manager in every female prison and they have all had specific training on women with ADHD.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful once again to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who led it. I am very happy to meet her at a later date to further explore the matter. As the ADHD taskforce has rightly pointed out in its interim report,

“ADHD, when unsupported, is a potent route into educational failure, long-term unemployment, crime, substance misuse, suicide, mental and physical illness.”

We have made significant progress to support neurodiverse people in the criminal justice system, including those with ADHD, but there is still much more to do, which is why this debate and the interest and commitment of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members is so valuable and helpful to all of us. I look forward to continuing to work with the taskforce and colleagues across Government to ensure that neurodiverse offenders are given the support they need to turn their backs on crime for good.