Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Thank you, Ms Butts, for coming to give evidence. I am Kieran, the shadow Justice Minister. I do not know whether you heard any of the earlier evidence, but one of our discussions was around the time it can take, through the public inquiry process, for people to get answers to their questions about what has happened to their loved ones or to themselves. An example that was brought to our attention was how the independent panel, which obviously took place long after the event, was not a public inquiry process, but was able to secure answers for families. I have a sense that the role of the IPA might be a way of addressing the gap between the need to have a public inquiry—with or without a duty of candour—and the need to get people answers more quickly. In your role as the independent public advocate, do you feel that you should have more powers, for example to compel the publication of records and information that might help families to get answers in a shorter timescale, as was suggested today? Cindy Butts: At the moment, I have gateway powers. Basically, that means that I only have access to information that families themselves should have access to. Although I have been in post for only two months, that provision has not quite yet been tested as to whether I need additional powers. But I absolutely recognise and appreciate the concerns of families in particular that where truth is withheld—in the case of Hillsborough, that was for many decades—that prevents them from accessing the truth. It has not been tested yet, and there might be a case for additional powers to allow me to have access to that information.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q What provisions in the Bill could be most helpful to the sorts of people you will be seeking to represent? In what areas, if any, do you think the Bill could be changed? Cindy Butts: Fundamentally, it is the fact that public officials will be required to act with candour not only in their daily work, but in respect of inquests, public inquiries and any other review processes that might ensue. That is really important, and it can certainly go a long way to recognising the gap, which has existed for far too long, whereby organisations are able to protect their own interests and hide the truth. The Bill can go a long way to filling that gap. Having said that, although I fundamentally welcome the Bill, it has a number of gaps. I have written to the Committee with my evidence. Some of it relates directly to the Bill, and admittedly other elements sit slightly outside it, but I cheekily wanted to put those issues forward, because I think they are fundamental in terms of truth finding. In terms of the gaps, the first thing is that the independent public advocate is not mentioned at all in the Bill. That is not a technical omission, but a structural flaw. When public bodies face major incidents—that is obviously the prism through which I am looking at this—they look to the statute that governs candour, and if the IPA is not referenced in that, they will assume that the IPA has no standing in the candour framework. They will not know what co-operation is expected or required of them, and they will treat the duty of candour as something separate from my statutory role. My office, which was created because candour failed, cannot be absent from legislation that is designed to make candour succeed. That is why a carefully drafted provision ought to be in the Bill. The other area I wish to highlight is the lack of coherence in moral language. What we know—this is a very insidious problem—is that in major incidents, different parts of the state speak in different moral registers. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which brought my role into being, the Hillsborough charter and now this Bill all speak in very different moral language. The Bill is very much in legal terms, the Hillsborough charter is very much in moral terms and the Victims and Prisoners Act is very operational. I do not think that this is a matter of semantics. It is absolutely fundamental that we have coherence among all the different elements because we know that, otherwise, when organisations are put under pressure, they revert to what is easiest to do. Not having that coherence allows them the ability to navigate to their own advantage. Another element that requires careful consideration relates to the monitoring of the duty of candour. The Prime Minister announced only a few weeks ago that the Ethics and Integrity Commission would be tasked with setting the framework and monitoring organisations’ adherence to the duty of candour. I think that is right. Having said that, in respect of major incidents, I do not think the Ethics and Integrity Commission is the right organisation to monitor compliance; that should sit with the Independent Public Advocate—with my role—ensuring that organisations are adhering to the duty of candour. The Ethics and Integrity Commission would not be on the ground. It would not have access to, or a relationship with, victims. That gap ought to be filled.

   Hansard source
3. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Are those your key points? I have some further questions. Cindy Butts: They are my key points, but I think there is one more that I want to bring to your attention. As the Bill is currently drafted, victims and bereaved families have no formal role in shaping guidance, oversight or the implementation of the duty of candour. Given that the Bill is derived from the experiences of the Hillsborough families and so many others who have faced tragedy, those ought to be hardwired into the Act itself so that reform is something that is never done to them, but always with them. There should be a way in which families have a formal role, working alongside the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to ensure that the Bill is not procedural and that it works in practice. That is fundamentally missing, and it should be corrected.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q This might be a timing issue, as you mentioned how short your time in post has been, but was your office consulted in the drafting of the Bill in any way, or did you just see it when it was published like everybody else? Cindy Butts: No, I just saw it when it was published, and that is because I have been in role for only two months.

   Hansard source
5. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Okay. On the first point you made about language, are there specific ways in which you would change the language? Would there be different words or terminology? Cindy Butts: Yes, I would want to see some of the language that is reflected in both the Hillsborough charter and the Victims and Prisoners Act—the section that deals with the Independent Public Advocate, where it speaks to the moral importance of accountability and truth telling—rather than what is there now, which is much more legalistic and technical. I do not think that that necessarily requires an amendment; it requires careful redrafting, which can be done quite easily. I am happy to spell that out and flesh it out in written evidence, if that would be helpful.

   Hansard source
6. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   It would be; thank you.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q I am the shadow Minister. It may well be that others asked for you to be here, but I asked in particular because the NHS already has experience with the legal duty of candour, so it is important to understand what you have learned from its operation. Even though you have had a legal duty of candour in the NHS for quite some time, I do not think any of you would claim that has meant the NHS has been candid with people in every single circumstance in which we would want it to be. If you accept that premise—you may not agree—why do you think it has not done what it needed to do for everybody? Do you think the Bill will make a difference? Let us go down the line, starting with Dr Chopra.

   Hansard source
8. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   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.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

   Q We heard in evidence this morning about a sense that prevention of future deaths reports are made but nothing is necessarily done to follow up on them. Dr Chopra, my understanding is that it is essentially the CQC’s job to take into account anything that is of material interest in an organisation, such as a prevention of future deaths report, and that you see it as your job to follow those reports up and at least attempt to ensure that they are listened to. Dr Chopra: We get notified of incidents. To be very frank, we are a responsive organisation when incidents occur; when we are made aware of PFD reports, we look at them. Because of the way that we look at things, as I said, we are responsive rather than taking a proactive view, but yes, that is right. One thing that might be helpful is to bring those recommendations to a national body. We are pinning a lot on the National Quality Board at the moment, but it would be helpful to bring recommendations to a central place that would allow their dissemination so that they land not just in the organisation where the incident occurred but across the piece.

   Hansard source
10. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Professor Fowler, does NHS England do anything to fulfil that function—look at all the reports in aggregate and summarise and share them? Professor Fowler: We certainly look at all the reports that are sent to us in a themed way, and look at the themes from that. In fact, I met the chief coroner this week, and we have regular discussions. You will know we have the medical examiner system now, and there is more we can do tie in the different processes and make sure that we learn from them. We look at what organisations report in quality accounts. We have prevention of future deaths reports and the “Learn from patient safety events” database, in which about 0.5% of the 3 million incidents are related to death. We bring the learning from those things together in a themed way with other data to ask, “What can we learn from all this together?” For example, medical examiners may require people to do a structured judgment review. We make sure that if that is requested, it is carried out, the learning is taken from it, actions are followed up and the cycle is completed, if you like.

    Hansard source
11. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Do you think we need another body to do the job of following up on PFDs specifically? Professor Fowler: No, I do not think we do.

    Hansard source
12. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Hello, all. I am the shadow Justice Minister. Thank you for coming and giving evidence to us today. Mr Warmington, in your view, what material difference would have been made to the Horizon scenario had the provisions in the Bill in relation to a duty of candour already been in place? Ron Warmington: Thank you for the question. I think it would have made a difference. I have been involved in companies that are steeped in ethical behaviour and have codes of conduct and sign-offs each year to confirm that people understand the letter as well as the spirit of the rules. What we encountered was what I have described in the past as weasel wording: straight questions altered to suit the questions that the recipient would have preferred to have asked of them, and answers that were seemingly compelling but actually not even, in some cases, telling the truth, let alone the whole truth. It should not have been, but it became a battle—a sort of warfare. It was completely unexpected by me that that behaviour would occur. I have dealt with out-and-out crooks before, but when it comes to that behaviour from the top brass and then the behaviour, as a contagion, going right through the company, I had not really encountered that before. That needs wholesale ethical change, and I am not sure an Act of Parliament can enforce that, but it will be a good thing to try.

    Hansard source
13. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Do we take it from that that you think most organisations do attempt to behave appropriately and admit it when they have done the wrong thing? Ron Warmington: I do not deal with most organisations, but the Post Office was exceptionally bad in its behaviour. I think it originally intended to work with my company to seek the truth; there were individuals who clearly wanted to do that, but preservation of the brand and short-termism—there was the misconception that pretending that the organisation never makes any mistakes at all was going to be good for the corporation in the long term. It is complete nonsense, but that was the philosophy that had spread throughout the organisation. I am 76 years old; I was raised in an era when my word was my bond and you did not need to have everything in writing. Corporate behaviour—unless I am misguided —was much better then. I hate the way the corporate world has gone, so I guess I was not that surprised at what we found in the Post Office.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Do you think that the fact that there will be criminal sanctions at the end of the process will be enough to put people off engaging in that sort of behaviour again in the future? Ron Warmington: I would hope so. Every board—I have been on a lot of them—is, every now and then, trying to deal with something that has been screwed up badly, and a decision has to be made: “What are we going to do about it? Are we going to front it out, or are we going to try to cover it up?” It does not take much to shift that decision in the right direction. This measure might be enough to do that.

    Hansard source
15. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I have questions for Ms Page from WhistleblowersUK. We have had a lot of discussion today about whistleblowers in relation to other incidents. What are your reflections on the Bill, and what impact do you think it will make for people within organisations who think that there is wrongdoing, but do not necessarily feel able to share that with other people? Flora Page: Let me answer that partly with reference to your earlier question; I have also been involved in the Post Office case, and it seems to me that there are some difficulties about whether the Bill would have applied, because it is not clear that the people to whom one would wish the duty of candour to attach would necessarily be public officials. I think there are also difficulties about whether Ron’s investigation would have qualified as an inquiry or investigation—so there are a number of difficulties. That takes me back to whistleblowers and your second question. The whistleblower provisions that we have in law at the moment are wholly inadequate, and the reason is that they put the onus on the whistleblower to enforce their rights as if they were employment rights, through the Employment Tribunal. That is entirely wrong-headed: when you speak up, it is not an employment issue; it is a public interest issue. When you are a whistleblower and it falls to you to protest any detriment that you might be suffering, it is treated as if it were a personal grievance matter—as it often is in the Employment Tribunal—rather than being taken out of the whistleblower’s hands and put into the hands of somebody who is there to look out for the public interest. I can speak from very direct personal experience representing whistleblowers in the Employment Tribunal. It is an incredibly hostile environment for them. If they go all the way to a hearing, they are having to speak up again, often the people they have spoken up about are right behind them, and they have no protection. It is an unreasonable demand for people to have to put their families and their future employment in jeopardy and to be that brave. Some of the people whom I have acted for have been that brave, but that story is not a good story to tell; people do not want to be in that position. You cannot go out and say, “This is super. Let’s celebrate being a whistleblower,” because nobody wants to have to put themselves in that position—at their own expense, if they have sought legal representation. What we need is a much nimbler inquiry or person who is responsible for stepping in if the employer is not dealing with the whistleblower properly, so that it is taken out of the whistleblower’s hands and becomes a public interest matter. At WhistleblowersUK, there is a lot of talk about an office for the whistleblower, because that would be something that took it out of the whistleblower’s hands and took it out of the employment context.

    Hansard source
16. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I hope we can have a sensible discussion about the fact that, while a lot of what we have heard has been about good faith whistleblowers, people raising legitimate concerns that go on to be proved to be accurate, there are also people who operate in that space who fit other categories. There are good faith whistleblowers who are incorrect, and there are bad faith whistleblowers—people who have issues in their own performance, feel under pressure and use those kinds of powers inappropriately. How do we guard against that and ensure that anything we do to support the right actors does not support the wrong people? Flora Page: An office that was used to these problems would quite easily and quickly winnow out the people who were using it as a front. Often it is as simple as the chronology: if a whistleblower has been trundling along just fine in their job, and then they speak up and suffer detriment, that often means they are a genuine whistleblower. If it turns out that there has been all sorts of back and forth about personal grievance issues first, and then they start blowing the whistle, that is a different matter. Often it is as simple as that. People who are used to these matters—at WhistleblowersUK, there is a great deal of triaging of the inquiries that come in—can quite quickly tell who is a genuine whistleblower.

    Hansard source
17. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I am the shadow Minister. Beginning with Mayor Burnham, what are the key differences between the Bill that you presented to Parliament and this Bill as currently drafted? Andy Burnham: It substantially meets the provisions of the 2017 Bill. It is 80% to 90% there. Previous to its introduction to Parliament, Mayor Rotherham and I worked closely with the Government and got it to a point where we felt it was worthy of the name “Hillsborough law”—although there were still further issues to be picked up by amendments, which the Government agreed to as part of the negotiation process. One of those issues was the extent to which the duty of candour applies. I can tell the Committee more about my experience in convening inquiries at a Greater Manchester level, which may be relevant to the discussions. I also wish to see the parity of legal funding for bereaved families stated more clearly as a principle in this Bill, with a firm guarantee of what that means for families rather than a fairly loose entitlement as it is at the moment. We can go into the details, should you wish, but the Bill is substantially there. With legislation of this kind, it does not help anybody if loopholes, grey areas or high hurdles are created in terms of the tests for duties to apply. It is going to be helpful for everybody if the Committee and Parliament can make it absolutely plain what this Bill is intended to cover and what it is not. That will empower the public, which is, at the end of the day, what this Bill is about. There is still some work to do in certain areas to remove some of those loopholes and grey areas. I think that I speak for Steve as well in saying that we have been advised throughout by the lawyers of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. We strongly support the evidence that they have put to you as a Committee today.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Would you say, therefore, that the amendments that they have put forward are the ones that you think are necessary for the Bill to reach what you have described as an 100% threshold? Andy Burnham: We certainly support all those amendments. I do not need to go through them—you know what they are—but I would like to speak about two of them. The first is a Government amendment, I think, which may have come forward to the Committee already, on inquiries and the inquiries that are to be covered by the Bill. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I have convened two major inquiries. The first was the Kerslake inquiry into what happened at the Manchester Arena attack. The second was a major review into child sexual exploitation, or grooming, in Greater Manchester. I pushed for the Government to introduce that further amendment, because my experience with those reviews was, first, that Greater Manchester police was not entirely accurate in the account that it gave to the Kerslake report, which remains of deep concern to me, because clearly a report of that nature is not done under oath. We initiated it because we felt it to be right that, immediately after the attack—we could not wait for the public inquiry—we should gather learnings for our police force and fire service. It is barely believable that an inaccurate version of events was provided to Kerslake by Greater Manchester police. Secondly on grooming, it was my experience that, through various reports into the issue in Manchester, Rochdale and Oldham, the inquiry team found repeatedly that public servants refused to give evidence to them. There was no duty to assist in place, therefore public servants could do that without any consequence. On those issues, I hope you can understand why I pressed very hard for an amendment to ensure that the Bill covers inquiries ordered by combined authorities and local authorities. I believe the Government have created a serious harm test for those inquiries. We are not necessarily against that, but we hope the Committee will assist us in getting a clear definition of what that actually means. In the case of grooming, I did not necessarily have all the evidence at the time that serious harm had taken place; it was the risk that serious harm had taken place that led me to want to convene that inquiry. There is an important distinction there; I do not think a serious harm test should rule out the grooming example. Equally, it has been put to us that inquiries commissioned by local authorities on matters relating to fraud—I think the Edinburgh tram one is an example here—might cause serious harm to the reputation of a local authority. Should they be out of scope? We would say not. We could accept a serious harm test as long as it is reasonably widely drafted to cover all the examples that I have given. I think I have a position that may go a little further than the Hillsborough Law Now campaign on parity. I personally believe very strongly that this needs to be a firm principle in the Bill. Margaret Aspinall gave evidence to Parliament shortly after the second inquest and she recounted the experience from the first Hillsborough inquest of having to scratch around to fund her own legal costs and having to cash the cheque from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of her son James to pay for her legal fees. I brought forward the original Bill with that experience absolutely seared into my mind—how any bereaved parent should have to do that and go into a courtroom raw with grief, up against the highest KCs in the land who are often employed by public bodies lawyered up to the max. To me, it is a really important principle that there is parity in those courtrooms. Having a level playing field is a big guarantee of getting the truth, and I personally would like to see an amendment to the Bill that says that there must be a comparable level between the hourly rate of the KCs acting for the state and the KCs acting for bereaved families. To me, that is what that principle of parity actually means. I appreciate the strides that have been made here in terms of access to legal aid and access to legal representation—they are huge strides—but let us go further: the Bill should do 100% of a job, not 80% or 90%.

    Hansard source
20. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Mayor Burnham, what reason was given by the Government for not including, in the initial draft of the Bill, those provisions that the Hillsborough Law Now group and yourselves thought were needed? Andy Burnham: There was a concern that, at a local level, inquiries could be launched for fairly frivolous or political reasons. None of us wants a sort of industry in local inquiries using the provisions of the Bill. I understand that concern, and I could accept a serious harm test—as I said to the Minister last week—but it should not rule out major wrongdoing, particularly in relation to fraud. I accept that there could be a hurdle, but there is work to be done by the Committee to establish the precise nature of that hurdle. Obviously, you do not want to see the wasteful use of public funds and the over-commissioning of inquiries—I accept that—but I still think that there needs to be a definition of serious harm. There was initially a concern about public funds and the affordability of the commitment to parity. Again, I understand that, but Hillsborough Law Now and we would argue that the Bill could lead to lower public spending. Its provisions will help us to get to the truth more quickly and therefore reduce the length of public inquiries. The Bill also creates an incentive for the state to spend less on its own legal representation if there is a duty of parity that bites hard. If there is a rough equivalence in terms of the hourly rate, the state suddenly does not have an incentive to hire the best paid KCs in the land. At the moment, as I understand it, the state is completely free to do that. The Bill needs to create a mechanism that limits state expenditure. The savings from that will then help to pay for representation at a balanced level on the other side. I really wish to see the strongest possible principle of parity of arms in the final Bill.

    Hansard source
21. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
22. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Hello. I am the shadow Minister. Thank you, Mr De Simone, for coming to speak to us. It is important for us to have a context and understanding of your views more generally on how we scrutinise our security services. I read with interest your account of what had happened with the legal challenge that the Government put forward to your report in relation to Officer X. It seemed to me that you were describing the fact that there were separate advocates to consider legal evidence, as opposed to your own advocates—that there was evidence you were never going to be allowed to hear—and that you were saying that that in itself was not right. Do you accept that there are times that there should be secret and distinct processes to maintain secrecy, even in the cases of public interest journalism? Daniel De Simone: I certainly do. I do not think it is wrong that there are special advocates in closed material procedures; it is now an established part of a court process. What it does do, though, is place a special responsibility on MI5 to be candid, because their evidence is often very important in very significant cases, where there has been significant loss of life, where people’s citizenship is being removed or where people are being deprived of their liberties. That evidence is often heard in secret—so, away from the people most affected. That places a special responsibility on MI5—which they accept; their current director general has spoken about this—because there is a special responsibility on secret organisations to be candid and honest. That is why the duty of candour is particularly important for MI5.

    Hansard source
23. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q You are obviously not here as a legal expert, and we would not hold you to that standard, but do you have some observations on how you think, from your own experience, the Bill as currently constituted will work well and how it might not? Daniel De Simone: There has been evidence earlier today from other witnesses. MI5, as things stand—as I understand it—would not be subject to the same level of responsibilities as other organisations. They would be like a corporate responsibility organisation, not with full command responsibility for the director general. The cases we have heard about—my case, which is still ongoing, and the Manchester Arena—show that there have been very recent examples where there has been a significant failure of a duty of candour. That raises a question about whether MI5 can be relied on to give honest and accurate evidence. With the Manchester Arena example, they gave a false picture, an inaccurate picture, about the key intelligence that was received before the bombing. In my case, they gave false evidence to three different courts. When that was accepted by them—with some reluctance, I must add—they then said they were going to investigate it and also appointed an external investigator. Those reports were inadequate. That is not my view but that of the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales and other senior judges, and the Prime Minister has ordered a new investigation. Even after they accepted it, they still then came to the High Court and gave an inaccurate picture. They gave evidence to the court that was open, and then when they were forced to hand over the closed material, it did not reflect the reality, and the judges said that to them. That is why I think the duty of candour really does apply very importantly to MI5. If it has an exemption and is not treated the same as other organisations, that is a bit of an issue. We have very recent, current examples of where they are not being candid with courts.

    Hansard source
24. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q When we met them, the leadership of the organisation considered that they would be personally criminally liable for any failure to operate the duty of candour. Do you think that is not the case? Daniel De Simone: I am not a legal expert, but from what I understand there is not a full command responsibility on, for example, the director general of MI5, as things stand. There is not the same level of responsibility on the individual officers as there is on, for example, the police or Government Departments. There is a question about why that is, given how important MI5 often is in very significant cases. MI5 often gives evidence corporately to courts and inquiries, and that has been shown, in our case, to be very unsatisfactory. The High Court has issued new guidance on the way MI5 should give corporate evidence, so that it has to be much clearer about where the information comes from and who is responsible for it. We have spoken a lot about inquests today. In inquests, MI5 always tends to give evidence corporately, via an anonymous corporate witness. The individual officers who make the decisions are not called. With the Manchester Arena case, we saw how important that was, because the corporate witness came along and gave one account in public, and when the arena inquiry chairman made the individual officers come along in a closed session—that, of course, would not be available in an inquest, but this was a public inquiry—he got a totally different account. That is why there is a real importance on individual officers having accountability and corporate witnesses having accountability, because they are corporate witnesses representing the organisation. To be blunt, the director general of MI5 is not really the corporate witness; it is normally someone else who is quite senior, but not the director general.

    Hansard source
25. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q As MI5 will not be here to give evidence, it is important to articulate the points they made to us for you to hear. Their account was that there is a difference between one part of the organisation not knowing what another part of the organisation knows, and a deliberate attempt to keep something from a coroner or inquiry. What do you say to that? Daniel De Simone: When we have got into a process like the Manchester Arena case, there is a way that that can be dealt with. There is a coroner and a chairman of the public inquiry, and they can deal with that. The point they are talking about there appears to be more about whistleblowing, and if someone feels something is wrong and they need to raise it—

    Hansard source
26. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Sorry—the point was more that an individual officer might know about a certain set of circumstances, but they will not know all the circumstances, and they will have only a limited perspective because of the need-to-know principles that they operate on. Daniel De Simone: There are ways of dealing with that. You could say the same with a police investigation. The police officer might not have the full picture. The point is about whether there is going to be duty of candour responsibility on people generally within the organisation. Is there going to be a command responsibility generally on the director general? I think that is a separate point, because there is a way of dealing with that.

    Hansard source
27. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

    Some people say there is and some people say there is not; I guess it is for us to try to work that out. Thank you for your assistance.

    Hansard source
28. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    I hope I speak for everyone in the House when I say that it is a special privilege to be elected to represent our constituents. The British people put their trust in each and every one of us to be their voice in this place. Our nation prides itself on a strong democracy, and the role of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition is critical to that. I remind hon. Members on the Government Benches that the relationship between Opposition and Government is symbiotic: the Opposition are here not merely to be a critic, but to subject a Government to scrutiny, which is a vital safeguard of public trust. Amplifying the voices of the British people, asking the questions that they want to see answered and offering an alternative vision for the United Kingdom are essential roles of an Opposition in a democracy. Government opaqueness is not conducive to such accountability. The Prime Minister seems to agree. He said he would deliver “a different way of working. One of openness, of collaboration and transparency in everything we do”. However, Ministers have shown a complete disregard for Parliament, the ministerial code and the Nolan principles by refusing to submit themselves to scrutiny and by withholding information from Parliament without good reason. There are a number of levers put in our hands to help with scrutiny: written questions, oral questions, urgent questions and debates on the Floor of the House, including Adjournment debates such as this one. One further lever that Members can use to hold the Government to account and ensure transparency is writing letters directly to Ministers. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the Chancellor has had a busy week, but when I and my right hon. Friends wrote to her over 12 months ago, after last year’s Budget, to express our concerns about the rise in national insurance and how it would affect the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance, we did so out of a deep concern for what the policy would mean for those charities, which deliver crucial, lifesaving care and that support our NHS every day. Despite my office chasing that correspondence, and despite our raising it in the House repeatedly and raising it with members of the Procedure Committee, we have had no reply in over 12 months. I raised the matter as a point of order earlier this week, and it has now been acknowledged that the Chancellor has the letter and excuses for the lack of response have been made, but we have still not received a reply. But, after the Budget yesterday, I guess the answer to whether the Government will help air ambulances is no. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be thinking that this is one isolated error, but unfortunately that is not the case. A constituent of mine who has 15 years’ experience as a church warden in a village contacted me to outline the huge difference that a scheme would have on efforts to fund urgent repairs, and how removing it would harm this vital community asset. I sent my constituent’s correspondence to the Chancellor and asked for her comments on the concerns expressed. On 21 January I was informed that my correspondence had been transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, yet despite chasing I received no response whatsoever. It is 323 days since I wrote to the Chancellor and 310 days since it was passed to the Culture Secretary—no response. On 23 September 2024 I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology regarding my constituent’s concerns about broadband speed in his village. On 4 December 2024—relatively quickly for this Government—I received a response, but my constituent saw potential errors in the response, so I wrote back to the Minister on 23 April 2025 to request that he look into these important matters. Again, despite chasing, I received no response until 20 November 2025, 211 days after that April letter, to confirm that the Department “aim to respond within 20 working days”. You could not make it up. It does not stop there. I wrote to the Department for Business and Trade on 6 June about the UK bioethanol industry and received no response. I sent letters to the Department for Work and Pensions in July and August about my constituent’s dissatisfactory experience with and concerns about the Child Maintenance Service and received no response. I wrote to the Minister for Water and Flooding, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), on half of a parish council in my constituency that wished to invite the Minister to a meeting on 22 October. Now, I understand the pressures on a Minister’s diary, but I do not understand how we have reached 27 November and the Minister has not yet been courteous enough to respond. These instances are not anomalies; taking an inordinate amount of time to respond to Members has become the Government norm. Most disappointing, however, is the fact that the responses received, despite taking so long, are too often completely unrelated to the matters raised and questions asked. On 11 June I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the statutory scheme for rebate pricing for drug manufacturers to highlight serious concerns raised with me about potential impacts on a local business. I asked for clarity on three matters in three perfectly clear questions, and 156 days later I received a response from a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, although none of the questions I asked were answered or addressed in any proper way. Not only did I wait 156 days to receive a response; I waited 156 days to receive a response that did not answer my questions. These examples clearly demonstrate that the service this Government and Ministers are providing to MPs, and therefore to our constituents, is simply not good enough. Correspondence is not being lost in the system; it is wilfully neglected. When responses do arrive, they should be accurate. When I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at oral questions why he had not delivered on his commitment to deliver the RSV vaccine to the over-80s this winter, he told me, “We have”, when, in fact, the Government had not, with the actual expansion not happening for winter 2025. I then raised a point of order, followed by a named day question, to which a Minister responded by redefining “delivered” to mean accepting the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—stretching credulity—all while admitting: “The RSV programme could not be expanded ahead of this winter.” This linguistic gymnastics is Kafkaesque. What other options are available to us? I understand the pressures that Departments face, but there are many Ministers to answer these questions, not to mention an army of civil servants. I again refer to the ministerial code, which clearly states: “Ministers should, where possible, provide full and timely responses to written parliamentary questions, ministerial correspondence and select committee reports.” With that in mind, earlier this month I ended up submitting 16 written parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care just to ask when he planned to respond to 16 of my named day questions, which should have been answered in three sitting days but were all overdue—in some cases by up to two weeks. In what can only be described as a farcical situation, I submitted a written question asking when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care planned to respond to a written question, which itself asked when the Secretary of State planned to respond to another written question, which was then finally responded to. It is with regret that I must inform hon. Members that I have 11 further written parliamentary questions that remain unanswered and overdue. The oldest was due for an answer by 14 October, which I have still not received. I lament that the Nolan principles of openness and accountability have sunk to such depths under this Government that I am required to submit so many follow-up questions, but it was not always like this. Some 92% of ordinary written questions and 88% of named day questions were replied to on time in the 2023-24 Session under the Conservatives. Another lever open to us is the urgent question, yet that is just another question to which the Government do not respond with answers. The most recent and most glaring example of the Government failing to uphold their obligations to be transparent and accountable to Parliament and the public is the appointment of David Kogan as chair of the Independent Football Regulator. As the ministerial code makes clear, Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict arises between their public duties and private interests. As the Commissioner for Public Appointments has made clear, the Culture Secretary breached the appointments code by not declaring her conflict of interest before signing off on Kogan as the Government’s preferred candidate, having received undeclared donations from Kogan for her leadership campaign in 2020. Despite that, the Prime Minister still felt it was appropriate to also sign off on Kogan’s appointment and to clear the Culture Secretary of any wrongdoing. It is clear that the Prime Minister was in no position to do so, having also received donations from Kogan for his leadership campaign—the very same conflict of interest as the Culture Secretary—and supposedly having recused himself from any involvement in the appointment process. When somebody is given a part-time job for £130,000 a year, and that person is giving money to the person appointing him, it is clearly in the public interest to know how much money that person has given the person appointing him—the Prime Minister or other Ministers. Despite there being an urgent question in the House on this, the Prime Minister has still not declared how much money Mr Kogan or his businesses gave. The Prime Minister says that rule makers cannot be rule breakers, so why are Ministers refusing to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction? Surely the public have a right to know. How can we get around the Government’s obfuscation? It is shameful that in order to get answers to our questions, we must resort to submitting numerous freedom of information requests to public bodies to get the details on the issues we are concerned about because written questions have not been answered. I will give an example. After the strategic defence review in 2025, I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask which industry bodies, defence industry companies, media organisations and other non-government bodies or people were given access to the review ahead of its publication, and at what times. Because they did not answer the question, I submitted an FOI request. I did not receive a timely response to that. I therefore had to go back to where I started and submitted a written question on 1 September, asking when the Department planned to respond to the FOI request. I finally received a grossly belated response on 16 September—yet it was dated 9 September—from the Secretary of State. That reply was incomplete and I have had to submit another FOI request to get the rest of the information. Is this not the kind of wasteful and inefficient use of time in Government Departments and the civil service that our constituents want rooting out? Why should Members need to submit an FOI request to get an answer to their written question and then submit a written question about that very FOI request in order to get the answer that the Department clearly had all along? I am sure that Ministers are very busy, so how is that a good use of their time, or indeed Members’ time? How does it reassure Members that the principles declared as important within the ministerial code are being taken seriously? It clearly does not. Ministers have developed a habit of announcing policy to the media instead of to this House in order to avoid scrutiny. I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, your many attempts, and those of Mr Speaker and other Deputy Speakers, to stop this. I asked a named day question on 11 November about the maternity and neonatal taskforce, which the Secretary of State promised an update on in June. I asked who is on the taskforce and how many times it has met. I have still not received an answer, but fortunately I read the answer in the New Statesman on the weekend, because the relevant Minister in the Lords made an announcement at a public event with the answer, which is that the taskforce has not met but will do in January, and that the people on it have not been decided yet. Why are the Government announcing the answers to questions in public and to the media but not in the House? We all have a duty in this House to answer questions and address the issues that face our constituents. These are not isolated examples; these are my experiences as one MP among 650 in this House, and I know that this is happening to many colleagues. I can only image the scale of evasion of accountability across the House. On the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised to “restore service and respect to politics”. Yet when Ministers are not firefighting reports of tax avoidance or criminal convictions, they are tap dancing around parliamentary questions and feeding policy announcements out to favoured journalists, instead of announcing them to this House and the public first. Let me be clear: accountability is not a courtesy, and it is not optional. When Members ask questions and submit letters, we are doing so on behalf of our constituents. Ministers may regard swerving, stonewalling and spin as shrewd tactics, but they are not. It is an affront to this House and to the British people we represent. It is high time that this Government lived up to their own lofty rhetoric and started giving us answers. The public deserve a lot better.

    Hansard source
29. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    Because you are not listening.

    Hansard source
30. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    I understand what the Minister is trying to say with his whataboutery, and his “Somebody else might have done it first,” but the point is that his Government are in government, and they are not delivering on their promises. The ministerial code already requires Ministers to be open and transparent, and to answer the questions, and they are not doing that. A tightened-up ministerial code will not be worth the paper it is written, given that the current one is not being adhered to.

    Hansard source
31. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    Does the Minister understand that £130,000 for a part-time job is a damn sight more than most of my constituents—in fact, almost all of my constituents—are getting, and that if the Prime Minister has appointed somebody or signed off on someone’s appointment, having received money from the person he is appointing, the public will want to know how much that person and their businesses may have given him?

    Hansard source
32. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    Will he answer that point?

    Hansard source
33. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
34. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Government Transparency and Accountability

    Take the Department that has received the most questions this parliamentary Session, the Department of Health and Social Care. It has received 15,000 questions since 4 July 2024, which is 29 questions per day. It has five Ministers and a whole army of civil servants to answer those questions.

    Hansard source
35. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of TV Distribution

    9. What recent progress the Future of TV Distribution stakeholder forum has made on its work.

    Hansard source
36. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Future of TV Distribution

    Older people and those in rural constituencies such as mine, which unfortunately still have unreliable broadband, rely on terrestrial television. The excellent Westminster Hall debate that I led demonstrated cross-party concern about this issue. Will the Minister meet me and other concerned MPs to discuss how we can safeguard terrestrial television?

    Hansard source
37. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Budget Resolutions

    I liked the introduction to the shadow Chancellor’s speech. Would a better film analogy perhaps be “The Nightmare Before Christmas”?

    Hansard source
38. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Budget Resolutions

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I will be picking up on some of the points he made later in my remarks, but I will start by characterising the whole Budget in the way that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, which is that this was the “Nightmare Before Christmas” Budget. After last year’s Halloween Budget, another Budget has come back for more and more tax on the strivers, the entrepreneurs, the hard workers and the pensioners across our land. In our scrutiny of the Budget as the Treasury Committee, we will be trying to draw out some of these decisions that the Chancellor announced yesterday from the Dispatch Box. It is clear that last year’s Halloween Budget was the biggest tax-raising Budget in UK history, and yesterday’s Budget was the third-biggest tax-raising Budget in UK history. It is an enormous burden that we have put on our country. What we saw in the run-up to the Budget was also extraordinary, including the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report was leaked during Prime Minister’s questions. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means was rightly outraged about that on behalf of Parliament. For the benefit of the House, I will outline the role that the Treasury Committee plays in relation to the Office for Budget Responsibility. It will appear before the Committee on Tuesday. We received a letter today from the chief executive, Richard Hughes, outlining the fact that he is undertaking an investigation. That has been published, but the House may not be aware that the Treasury Committee has a veto over the appointment of all three senior members of the Office for Budget Responsibility and, importantly, their dismissal. That is written into legislation. We take our responsibility to get to the bottom of what happened incredibly seriously, because on behalf of Parliament we have to find out. There was a lot of skulduggery in the run-up to this Budget, with all these kites being flown by the Treasury. There was possibly speculation by the media, but all these ideas culminated on the morning of 4 November with the Chancellor breaking into the nation’s breakfast with her doom-laden pronouncements about the upcoming Budget. It was extraordinary and unprecedented, and it was rightly the subject of an urgent question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). After that, we had a story in the Financial Times on the evening of 13 November that moved the gilt market the minute it opened on the morning of the 14th. It was about the decision not to proceed with an income tax switch with national insurance. Extraordinary skulduggery has been going on somewhere in the Treasury. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury responds to this debate later, he can provide clarity on the instructions that the Chancellor has given to the permanent secretary to do a full skulduggery investigation of the Treasury. It should not just be a leak inquiry, as something significantly more widespread has happened in the run-up to this Budget, and I do not think that Parliament can accept it. We need to draw a line under this behaviour, and we need to get to the bottom of it. Apparently the Chancellor herself said to Labour Back Benchers that this decision—that she would not have to increase income tax—was going to be the rabbit she would pull out of her hat at the Dispatch Box yesterday. Some of the briefing that Treasury spokespeople did after this leak to the Financial Times related to the fact that the OBR had improved its economic forecasts, but we saw in its document yesterday that it had not changed its main economic forecasts since 31 October, so that cannot be right either. There has been some unbelievable leaking or briefing—“skulduggery” seems to sum it up—from Treasury special advisers, and the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility has been tainted. We as a Committee, on behalf of Parliament, take our responsibility in relation to the OBR incredibly seriously. I want to highlight a couple of the measures in the Budget, and the first relates to productivity. Both Front Benchers mentioned the importance of focusing on productivity and the impact that the downward revision in productivity had on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, but everyone knows that this country’s private sector has continued to become more productive, whereas the problem with productivity in the public sector was very much exacerbated in the last Parliament and during the pandemic. Public sector productivity has still not recovered to the kinds of levels that we had before the pandemic. There is some incredible productivity scarring in our public sector, and I think it would be welcome if the Minister could outline from the Dispatch Box how the Government plan to tackle public sector productivity. If productivity in the national health service returned to pre-pandemic levels, it would be worth £20 billion. Possibly all the tax rises in yesterday’s Budget could be removed if we got to that level of productivity again. I do not think that giving NHS doctors a 30% pay rise, with no requirement for them not to strike again, helps productivity. I do not think that the Government’s decisions align with getting better productivity out of our public sector, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to elaborate on that. Finally, I will pick up on the powerful speech that the hon. Member for Rochdale made about child poverty. He will be aware that over the last 14 years, absolute child poverty—not in his constituency, but in aggregate across the country—has fallen. That is largely down to higher employment but also, importantly, more help with childcare. Those are important things to focus on in terms of people’s ability to work and to earn more. Last week, the Treasury Committee asked experts what the child poverty line is in this country, and it is important for the House to understand the figures that we got back from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. After a household with two children and two adults have paid all their taxes and housing costs, the relative poverty line, which is what the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, is £24,650 a year. For a household with three children and two adults—again, after they have paid their taxes and housing costs—the figure is £28,176. We need to recognise that many people who will be caught by the tax rises in the Budget have much lower incomes than that. Widowers who have a small widow’s pension will pay more tax because of the decisions in yesterday’s Budget.

    Hansard source
39. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Budget Resolutions

    I am talking about yesterday’s Budget. The Chancellor herself announced that she was freezing the thresholds for a further three years, and I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will be asked to vote for that in the Aye Lobby next week. I disagree with him, because the Chancellor has just announced that the thresholds will be frozen for an additional three years. Another person who will pay more tax as a result of the Chancellor’s decisions is a single young person on minimum wage. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the emigration statistics that were published today, which show that hundreds of thousands of our young people are fleeing this country. That is something that we should all be very concerned about. A single mother who has just received a lump sum in a divorce settlement will pay more tax as a result of yesterday’s Budget. A sole trader or entrepreneur who runs a business and perhaps pays themselves in dividends will pay more tax as a result of yesterday’s Budget. A driver in my rural constituency who needs to drive to go to work will pay more tax because of yesterday’s Budget. We can see that the choices made by the Chancellor punish the employers, the farmers, the family businesses, the workers, the savers, the pensioners and the drivers—everyone who tries to do the right thing and tries not to be a burden on the state. I will leave the House with one final point.

    Hansard source
40. 27 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Budget Resolutions

    I am looking forward to the Minister’s winding-up speech at the end of the debate, and I will not give way at the moment. Given the skulduggery that the Treasury seems to have engaged in during the run-up to this Budget, the lingering impression will be that the spectre of further tax hikes looms. The floating of the income tax idea and all the other tax ideas, and all the taxes, will come back like a ghoul in Budgets to come.

    Hansard source