Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2025.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
We are sitting in public and our proceedings are being broadcast, although I have asked specifically that the public not be admitted to the Public Gallery at this stage, simply so that they do not file in and then have to file out again for the private session. Will Members please switch off electronic devices? I remind everyone that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—if you want to have that, you have to go outside the room.
We will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then the motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and the motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available to us, which is very limited, I would like to take those motions formally, without debate. I hope that that will be in order for all members of the Committee.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
I wish to declare that I am a director and vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit organisation.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
That is now a matter of record. If any other Member has interests to declare, will they please do so before they start questioning?
Examination of Witness
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
We will now hear oral evidence from Hillsborough Law Now. I am afraid that we have to stick to very tight timings because of the number of witnesses we are seeking to call in these sessions. For this witness, we have until 12 o’clock only. Thank you for joining us, Mr Weatherby. For the benefit of the record, will you please indicate who you are?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Q Would you like to make a brief—and I mean brief, for obvious reasons—opening statement?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Thank you, Mr Weatherby; that is most helpful.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I am the shadow Justice Minister. Thank you for the written briefings, particularly the one done with INQUEST and Justice North, which is very detailed. As has been alluded to, we cannot go through it all, but could you pick out perhaps the two or three points where it is most important to make further amendments, based on what you just saidQ ?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q We have time for you to expand slightly on what you want to see change in those three elements.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
The Minister has graciously indicated that she wants Members to have the chance to ask questions. Minister, feel free to come back if you choose to. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
Q The Bill clearly has its duty of candour and assistance. You have already made comments about focusing on the chief executive or the senior leader in any organisation. Can I check with you whether you feel that that would be sufficient to enable cultural change within organisations?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Welcome, Mr Weatherby. I would like to ask about two things, one of which is command responsibility. With Hillsborough, within four and half months, Lord Justice Taylor’s report quite rightly pinned the main blame on South Yorkshire police’s lack of proper behaviour on the day. If you had had command responsibility, that would have included the South Yorkshire chief constable and perhaps the match commander, who we know lied live on TV about what had happened. Do you think that the Bill, without command responsibility, would have managed to deal with that big problem at Hillsborough—the cover-up and the lies that were told to defend the match commander, presumably authorised and okayed by the chief constable? Do you think that the provisions, as they are, would have prevented that cover-up?Q
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q Do you agree that accountability of those responsible is one of the main things that families in disasters want?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
They want to know what happened, and they want accountability where there have been errors or grave mistakes. In the Hillsborough case, of course, the match commander lied and then tried to cover up—unsuccessfully, in the end—what had really happened by smearing Liverpool fans and those who had died. It took many years—well, until the Hillsborough independent panel convinced the country of the truth—
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
In 2012. It took a long time for that to be fully put to bed.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q The Bill seeks to deal with these things by having proper equal legal representation, which is a good thing in my view. Do you think it is enough? Again, it was the Hillsborough independent panel, a non-legal process, that finally got to the truth. All the legal actions that had taken place before it did not achieve that. What role do you think there is for panel-like arrangements?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Thank you for your evidence so far, Mr Weatherby. Notwithstanding the force of the command responsibility amendment that you have told us about, would you see an additional or bolstering role for the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament, in addition to the recommendations that you are makingQ ?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
It is Q good to speak to you, Peter. I have a couple of quick points after what we listened to last week when we went to visit the security services; this was raised, and I would like your opinion on it. First, will anything in the Bill compromise the UK’s intelligence sharing with its partners? Secondly—we have come a long way to get here today, and I just want a definitive answer to a blunt question, because we really only have one shot at this—in its present format, would the Bill prevent a Hillsborough-style cover-up? I know that you just alluded to this with Maria, but I want a definitive answer on the record.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
With the strengthening amendments.
Tom Morrison (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)
Thank you for your evidence so far, Pete. You touched just then on how this will be a deterrent, but for that to be needed, there needs to be a culture change in public services. In the Bill, there is a lot of talk about trying to create codes of conduct. How do you envisage that working? Do you think that one standard code of conduct would go across all public services, or should each organisation be responsible for building its own code of conduct and then implementing itQ ?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
I would just like a little more detail—thank you for your briefing—on the difficulty of proving intent and recklessness in a corporate body. For those of us who are not legally trained, could you explain a bit more about why that is difficult to proveQ ?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q So there is no easy way to show corporate collective actions, which are obviously the sum of a number of individual actions.
Anneliese Midgley (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you very much, Pete, for coming to give evidence. Going back to the stuff that has been raised about the intelligence services, will you state plainly whether you think clause 6 strikes the right balance between candour and national security, and what is the problem that the Hillsborough Law Now briefing raises with regard to schedule 1?Q
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
I have to draw this session to a conclusion. Mr Weatherby, thank you very much for you evidence; the Committee is indebted to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
We shall now take oral evidence from the Law Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Again, we have to stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed, so we have for this session, I am afraid, only until 12.30 pm. I would be grateful if the witnesses could confine their answers to some brevity, in order to obtain as much information through Members as possible. First, could you identify yourselves for the record?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Thank you very much indeed. Does either of you wish to make a brief opening statement? I do mean brief.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Hello; I am the shadow Justice Minister. Professor Lewis, are there any significant differences, or even minor differences, between the work that the Law Commission did and its recommendations, and the Bill as drafted?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Thank you, Professor Lewis. Does Mr Guest wish to come in on the back of any of that?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q It is obviously difficult to talk about hypotheticals, but I think it is potentially helpful, because we are talking about legal terms that not even members of the Committee will necessarily be familiar with. Taking first subjective versus objective awareness, in what sort of scenarios might that create a difference in how the Bill operates?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I ask the same question, but on reasonable excuse versus public interest.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Mr Guest, can you see any prosecutorial disadvantages to the new offences compared with the existing law?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
The Minister has once again kindly waived her right to question, so I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, please.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
Q The duty of candour binds those who are in a direct contractual relationship with the public authority. I am interested in knowing how far down the line it would go to subcontractors and, indeed, subcontractors of subcontractors.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
Q What do you feel are the potential risks and benefits of requiring permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
It would help if Members could indicate which witnesses they wish to address their remarks to.
Natasha Irons (Labour, Croydon East)
This question is for Mr Guest. What legitimate reasons might a body have for not complying with the duty of candour? Can you think of any examples?Q
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q This question is for Mr Guest. For a member of the public like me, could you draw out the difference between what you would regard legally as “seriously improper” conduct and simply improper conduct? What I am trying to get at are examples such as someone who does not draw attention to a computer program that is clearly flawed; someone who decides not to tell anyone about a medical product that is harmful; or a situation in which there is a large-scale loss of life. For a member of the public, what is the difference between improper and seriously improper?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
To be clear, it depends.
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q Professor Lewis, you spoke about the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. Have I understood correctly that if someone puts forward the defence of reasonable excuse—I think this is the phrasing—it would then be for the prosecution to prove that it was false rather than for the defendant to prove that it was true?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q Thank you. That is very helpful. Mr Guest, you talked about some of the guardrails against unmeritorious or vexatious prosecutions. One of the things that we have seen in previous cover-ups is that junior members of staff have felt the burden, either when they try to tell the truth or because they are punished when the truth has not been there. I have been told—although I disagree—that the Bill could create a fear of unreasonable prosecution, or could cause junior members of staff to take responsibility, rather than senior members of staff. Do you consider that a risk? Does the way the law is set out mean that it will work as intended?
Tom Morrison (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)
This is for Tom Guest. The new offence of misleading the public would not apply for the purposes of journalism. How clear do you think the meaning of that exception is? I will give two examples: would it count if a Minister was writing a piece for a newspaper column or if a public servant was briefing the media after an event?Q
Douglas McAllister (Labour, West Dunbartonshire)
My question is to Tom. Under the clause 12(5) defence of reasonable excuse for a seriously improper act of Q misconduct, what do we regard as the “sufficient evidence” described in clause 12(6)? You said that the defendant simply needs to raise that, but to what standard? What is sufficient and, in a jury trial, who decides that? Is it for the jury to decide if the defence has been laid out, or will there be judge guidance to the jury? The standard of the burden of proof falling on the Crown to disprove it is pretty high—it is “beyond all reasonable doubt”. That is my concern.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Q Professor Lewis, do you wish to add to that?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q I just want your views, Mr Guest, on whether the new offences—committing a seriously improper act in public office and the breach of duty to prevent death and serious injury—would have applied in the Hillsborough circumstances? A match commander ordered the gate opened, which led to the crush, and then lied, immediately on national TV and subsequently, about his actions by saying that the fans had broken the gate down. Would that constitute a seriously improper act or a breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury?
Subsequently, there was a cover-up that involved police officers from South Yorkshire and West Midlands police altering statements to try to get across a narrative about what had happened that was different from the truth. None of the officers who engaged in any of that has ever been found guilty of any offence or held to account in any way. Do you believe that if the offences in the Bill had been on the statute book at the time, there would have been a proper chance to hold those officers to account?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q To Tom and Professor Lewis, under the Bill as drafted, could a public authority have a legitimate reason for not complying with the duty of candour? If yes, can you give me an example?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q The common law offence is unlimited in its penalties, essentially. Do you, as prosecutors, sometimes advocate for sentences above what will be the statutory limit to the sentences for the new offences?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q But are you aware of examples that have gone above those limits?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I will pick up on the earlier questions on contractors and subcontractors. If I put in everybody’s mind the Post Office Horizon scandal, where you had contractors and potentially subcontractors, do you think that there would be any obstacles to prosecuting a scenario similar to the Post Office Horizon scandal because of contractor and subcontractor limits?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q But potentially?
Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)
Grenfell United submitted some evidence to us with extracts from the Grenfell inquiry of local government officers repeatedly saying, “Can’t recall, can’t recall”. How would the duty of candour apply in those circumstances? How do we prevent what they would see as stonewalling of the inquiryQ ?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Thank you very much for your evidence, Professor Lewis and Mr Guest. The Committee is most grateful to you.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. We are now going to take oral evidence from Margaret Aspinall, Steve Kelly, Sue Roberts and Charlotte Hennessy. May I ask you very briefly to introduce yourselves? We will the do the introductions first and then we will take, if you wish, a very brief opening statement from all or any one of you.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Thank you very much indeed. Before I invite questions, can I say personally how very much I appreciate that you are here and have taken the trouble to be here today. The lines of questioning will be as sympathetic as, under these circumstances, it is possible to make them.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am Kieran, the shadow Justice Minister. I want to give my sincere condolences to all of you and all of the families for what you have been through. I want to commend your persistence, courage and bravery in carrying on and campaigning over such an extended period, as you have all done. It really is remarkable, and we are all very grateful. I will not ask many questions, as there are MPs on the panel who have worked with you and know you very well, and I am sure that they will be keen to ask questions.
I will just ask whether any of you want to talk about how things might have been different, and how the experience might have been different for you, had you known what had happened from the start and had truth from the outset.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Could I just ask, because there are four of you, that you indicate when you wish to add to the first answer given? That will help me to help the Committee, as we have quite a lot of questions to get through.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Part of the Bill is about creating parity of esteem in legal advice and support, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that it costs money. Have any of you experienced financial loss as a result of everything you have had to do?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Once again, the Minister has indicated that she wants Members to have the opportunity to ask questions. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
Q Can I just say how sorry I feel for you? It sounds dreadful and I am sorry. The question I should ask you is, “How confident are you that this will change the culture in public authorities?”, but I sense from what I have heard that I ought to ask, do you have any confidence that the Bill will change things?
Anneliese Midgley (Labour, Knowsley)
Q I have two questions for the whole panel. To start with, thank you so much for everything that you have done. There is no doubt about it; we would not be here in this room today with the Bill where it is without your work. We heard in an earlier evidence session from Pete Weatherby KC, the director of Hillsborough Law Now, who talked about command responsibility. He said that without the amendment, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good, but is rather ineffective. He also talked about application to the intelligence services. Do you agree with what Pete Weatherby said to us today? Owing to the shortness of time, I will ask my second question as well: what do you think the Bill Committee needs to hear from you today?
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
Q Mrs Aspinall, I can assure you that, before this Committee, you are most certainly not on trial. Steve Kelly.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
One moment; do you mind if I just take Sue Roberts? Then by all means come back.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
I will ask you to come in again in a moment, Ms Hennessy. As Ian Byrne was at the match, it is probably appropriate that I call him next, and then by all means comment.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q Thanks to the four of you for what you have done, and for what you put yourselves through all the time to get here. You know as well as I do that this is the legacy, isn’t it? This is our opportunity to create something that, as Margaret so eloquently said, is for future generations. Is there anything in the Bill that needs strengthening? This is our opportunity to do it. Is there anything missing from the Bill that you feel needs to be added in an amendment to give you the comfort that this is the true legacy for all your loss?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q If they are not added, will the Bill be poorer for it? Will you have confidence in the Bill without them?
James Asser (Labour, West Ham and Beckton)
May I just say that—no disrespect to our other witnesses— you are the most important people that we are going to Q hear from today? This is the first time I have been able to hear from you directly, and it has meant an awful lot to me, so I appreciate it.
You have expressed your confidence in the Bill, and we want to get it right. Given that you have had to spend four decades of your lives campaigning on this, which is an extraordinary and appalling amount of time to get to this point, if we get this passed and deliver on your confidence, what does that mean for you? Does it mean that you can say, “We have won. We get our lives back. We can do all the family things that this has taken up”? Or does it change your campaigning so that you can support others? You may have not thought about that point. I just want to make sure that we understand, if we get this done for you, and if we get it done right, what it actually means for you. I think it is important that we know.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
There are a lot more questions that Members would like to ask all of you, and no doubt there are a lot more answers that you will wish to give, but we have run out of time—that was inevitable this morning. Thank you so much for coming. I appreciate that it has not been easy for any of you; we all understand that, but we are deeply grateful to you. Thank you so much.
Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)
That brings us to the end of the morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in Committee Room 4A to continue taking oral evidence.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear evidence from Deborah Coles, executive director at INQUEST, and Professor Julia Waters.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
I do not have any questions. We are short of time, so I would rather allow other members of the Committee to ask questions.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I am the shadow Minister. Thank you for coming along to assist us with our proceedings. I have a question for you, Deborah, on the work of INQUEST. Will you illustrate the practical effect at inquests of public bodies usually being heavily legally represented, while affected families do not necessarily have any legal representationQ42 ?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q You mentioned what the coroner might choose to ask or not ask. What is your experience of the variability in the way in which coroners approach these issues?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Professor Waters, first I want to acknowledge the circumstances that bring you here today, which is not something that any of us would want to experience. Condolences on your loss. What was your experience of applying for legal aid, and what difference did it make to you that you did not get representation?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Thank you.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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.Q
Thank you to the witnesses. I am very sorry to hear what happened.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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?
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
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.
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
I will try to be quick, Mr Dowd. Families have told me that they have experienced during coroner’s inquests the following: information having to be dragged out of public bodies, hostile legal teams and a process that is meant to be inquisitorial becoming adversarial. Do you have any comments on whether the Bill will improve that situation?Q
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We have two minutes left. I call Maria Eagle.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Inquests are supposed to be inquisitorial; they are not supposed to be adversarial. Deborah Coles, I know that probably all the inquests your organisation handles are adversarial. The Bill looks to ensure that public authorities’ legal representation is necessary and proportionate. How do you see that impacting on your daily experience of the coronial system?Q
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
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 (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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?
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
I think that is automatic. Just let me chair the meeting.
Examination of Witness
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear from Lord Evans of Weardale. We have till 2.45 for this panel. Will the witness briefly introduce himself for the record, please?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am the shadow Minister. Some members of the Committee had the opportunity to meet deputy heads of the security services last week. One thing they talked about was that individuals within an organisation might have one version of events that they understand, but the wider organisation has other information pertaining to that that they do not understand, so they have a perception of what might be in the public interest and what it might be reasonable to disclose as an individual, but that is not there in its entirety. Given your previous role, can you comment on what the challenges might be for the security services in managing the additional duties that this Bill will place on them?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q In your experience of organisations that have delivered what you might call a duty of candour without this legal sanction, either successfully or unsuccessfully, what are the key culture changes we need to ensure that organisations deliver?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Thank you, Lord Evans, for your support of a Hillsborough law. We heard clear evidence this morning about the Manchester Arena bombing, and we are going to hear later on from a BBC reporter that the Security Service is not immune from the problems that the Bill has been created to address. My question is, if the Security Service has to go before an inquiry, why should they be treated any differently from a police officer? Surely, it should be the actual agent who answers the questions, and not the corporate body. We saw clear differences in Manchester, where many agents were summoned to give evidence, from what the corporate body was saying. As you outlined, we have to remember what this is about: it is about getting to the truth to give justice and accountability. My fear, as things stand, is that that will not happen with the security servicesQ .
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Should they be under a duty of candour, with criminal sanctions?
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Order. Ian, come back with another question if you wish to, but let the witness finish.
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Lord Evans, in the fullness of time, the Committee will consider amendments, so the final Bill might be slightly different in its shape. One can readily understand the very persuasive points that you have made, in particular with regard to MI6 and the need for good relationships with other countries on the sharing of information. However, we might consider command responsibility in a different way in the final Bill—the provision of safe mechanisms, for example closed sessions of inquiries or investigations, or possibly reporting mechanisms to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament. Were such arrangements in place, would that enable the head of a particular intelligence service to provide information to a safe place and, in turn, to the chair of an investigation or inquiryQ ?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q We heard a concern earlier from Mr Weatherby of Hillsborough Law Now about the current drafting of the Bill effectively carving out the intelligence service from the same responsibility, as it applies to other public officials. He was concerned that schedule 1, which is an amendment to other legislation, meant that there is only corporate liability here. Is that your understanding of the way in which this is working?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q Thank you; that is interesting. Does that mean that, if there is an amendment, as there may be later in Committee, to introduce command responsibility rather than just corporate liability, it would actually not concern the agencies too much, because that is what you understand the current drafting of the legislation to do?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Yes—so that whoever is in charge actually bears the legal liability for any failings that are discovered.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
It would be perfectly reasonable for you to write to the Committee with a more considered response.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
We may be agreeing.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Order. Can we just let the witness finish what they have to say?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Apologies, Mr Dowd. I have concluded.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Fine. I just want to hear what the witness has to say without any interruptions halfway through, but I am more than happy to be flexible.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q Lord Evans, would you accept that the Bill requires no additional disclosure beyond what is already required, and that it is actually about whether the information supplied is true? Therefore, it poses no extra risk to national security; it is just about the truth of the information that is supplied.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Regrettably, we have one minute tops.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Thank you very much for your evidence. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions, so I thank the witness on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear oral evidence from Hilda Hammond and Jenni Hicks from the Hillsborough families. We have until 3.10 pm for this panel. Thanks for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Will you tell us who you are, please, for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am the shadow Minister. I want to begin by thanking you both so much for coming. What you and the other families have been through is horrendous. I want to pay tribute to the courage and perseverance that you have shown, along with the other families, in persisting in raising these issues on behalf of your lost loved ones. It would be helpful for the Committee to hear from you both directly what the impact has been on you and your families of having to go through what you did and what you hope might be different for other families in future.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
We get to question the Minister at the end of the process, so that is a helpful thing for you to have given to us to think about.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
I will write to you too, Jenni.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
You are doing a great job.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
No, not at all—do not be sorry at all about it. We want to listen to what you have to say, and the Minister will be questioned in due course about some of the very issues that you and lots of other people have raised. Thank you for that outline; that is really helpful to the Committee.
Natasha Irons (Labour, Croydon East)
Thank you so much for your testimony and your courage and for fighting for so long. It is a privilege to be on this Committee and to hear from you—and I apologise for our train system. I understand it has been a long journey and it has taken a long time to get here, but my question is: what will success look like in the future? What will it look like if the Bill is a success and does the thing we wanted it to doQ ?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q I, too, salute your courage in your fight over many years to get to this point. The Bill is a landmark and will be something really good coming out of such a terrible tragedy, but it does not cover everything. We heard before lunch about things that other witnesses might like to see addressed. Hilda, is there anything that is not in the Bill that you would have liked to have seen included?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q I would like to welcome Jenni and Hilda, who are my constituents, to the Committee. You have both mentioned the importance of getting to the truth fast, and you said, Jenni, that it was only the Hillsborough independent panel, over two decades later, that actually got to the truth and had it accepted. You received an apology from the Prime Minister of the day about what had happened.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
A double apology, indeed. To what extent do you think the Bill would benefit from having some provisions, if they could be fitted into order, about empowering independent panels to do that kind of job?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
No, don’t worry.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We have only a couple of minutes left, I am afraid.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Q No, you are perfectly okay; there is no problem. I just wondered whether Hilda wanted to comment before we come to a close?
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Thank you very much for your contribution. We have listened to everything you said and it really has been invaluable.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
I will write to you.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
The Minister will write to you on that.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Thank you for the time you have taken to speak to us. I hope your journey home is better than it was on the way down.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
That brings us to the end of time allotted for that panel.
Examination of Witness
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear evidence from Grenfell United. We have until 3.30 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am the shadow Minister. Could you begin by telling us, given your experience of what happened at Grenfell and the investigations that followed, the key things that you think the Bill needs to address?
Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)
Thanks, Edward, for all the amazing pressure and advocacy that Grenfell United has done on these issues. It is incredibly powerful. I have two short questions. First, during the Grenfell inquiry, you had access to legal aid. Would you reflect on what having that parity meant for the inquiry? Secondly, we heard in an earlier evidence session about how these inquiries lead to change. What oversight and accountability, even if not introduced by this Bill, can help us to ensure that we get change from recommendations? Do you have any reflections on that?Q
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
I am afraid this will be the last question, because we have only a couple of minutes left, regrettably.
James Asser (Labour, West Ham and Beckton)
Thank you for what you have told us; it is important to hear from people who are directly involved. We have heard a lot today from the Hillsborough families. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but their experience was 35 years ago, and yours is much more contemporary, but it feels that in the three decades between the two there has been no progress and no improvement. You are just experiencing a variation on what they experienced. Is that a fair assessment? If it is, do you feel that the only way we are going to get the culture change that you and others have spoken about is by having the legal redress and recourse to be able to force that to happen?Q
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Thank you for your evidence, Mr Daffarn. I am afraid that is the end of this panel. Thank you for taking the time to speak for us, and for your comments, observations and responses to questions.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and we have until 3.50 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witness could please introduce himself for the record.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Hello, Chief Constable Guildford, I am the shadow Justice Minister. Obviously police officers are already under considerable obligations in terms of their conduct. What gaps do you think this Bill might help to close to ensure that police officers conduct themselves appropriately in their roles?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q How do we ensure that the right people are caught by these offences? I am aware that you can have a culture in an organisation where senior leadership can create an expectation of how people behave without necessarily ever putting anything in writing or having any kind of audit trail for that, while the individual officer who then acts on that—after being encouraged to say or do the wrong thing—is held to account more directly than the actual senior leadership. From your experience, how do we ensure that this Bill addresses the entire chain of accountability, rather than just perhaps the people on the sharp edge of it?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
Q Who investigates those allegations?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
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?
Tom Morrison (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)
You have already mentioned the code of ethics and code of practice, and we have had a lot of people talking about potential codes of conduct. Can you describe how your various codes filter through to the workforce, and how everyone is made aware of the codes they should be working to? As an organisation, how do you measure the success of the codes?Q
Tom Morrison (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle)
Great—thank you.
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q Chief Constable, I want to follow up on some of the points you made about training. First, this is groundbreaking legislation; we are seeking to achieve a massive culture change, and there will be a code of ethics and a code of conduct. Do you foresee the possibility of additional training requirements for senior and middle managers in the police?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q My supplementary to that comes in the light of the earlier point by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills about the number of failings at an organisational level over the years, and there have been many. You have described various mechanisms within the police, but do you think there might be a need for something that sits completely outside the force—across the country, for different forces—to enable individuals, whether middle or senior management, to bring things to the attention of a safe place completely outside the police? Do you think that might assist?
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Thank you. If Members have no other questions, I thank Chief Constable Guildford for his contribution.
Examination of Witnesses
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear oral evidence from the Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. We have until 4.15 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if witnesses briefly introduced themselves for the record, please.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I am the shadow Minister. Earlier, we heard clear evidence from families and from an organisation representing families, Inquest, about the imbalance in legal representation at inquests and the challenge that creates for families. One of the points made was about what might be described as an over-representation of public bodies. From the perspective of legal practitioners who do some of that representing, can you articulate why public bodies and their employees who might be subject to criticism at an inquest might still seek and want legal representation at inquests?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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.
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
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?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Q You will have heard that there is a sense of impatience to get this legislation implemented as quickly as possible, and that is justified given how long people have waited for this Bill. Speaking as a constituency MP, not just as a Minister, constituents are already asking me when the legislation will come in, because they are involved in ongoing inquests. Given the reality of the current capacity in the system, it is going to take a bit longer to build the capacity to allow us to fulfil the commitment in the Bill. How long is a piece of string? Do you recognise the need to get the capacity right before we can implement this part of the legislation?
Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)
Thank you. That is very helpful.
Douglas McAllister (Labour, West Dunbartonshire)
First, the Bill provides for non-means-tested legal aid, but how should that work in practice, Mr Minnoch? Should the grant be uncapped, in respect of time and line, with no limit? Or do you envisage that there should be blocks of work with specified limits?Q
Secondly, if a public authority has a team of, for instance, one senior and two juniors, why should a bereaved family be represented by perhaps only one junior counsel? That really would not be parity of arms. The Bill talks about members of bereaved families, but how many members of that family are we talking about? Is it one specific next of kin? We heard evidence earlier from a witness who talked about a divorcing couple. Would they both be granted legal aid?
Douglas McAllister (Labour, West Dunbartonshire)
Yes, it does. Thank you.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q It is good to hear evidence from both of you, Chris and Richard, and I echo that the legal aid element of the Bill is great news. I am a bit concerned about some of the mood music around scaling up for the parity of arms, because that was needed yesterday. From the evidence we have heard and our experiences, we know that is so important. It is such a crucial part of what we are trying to achieve here on accountability and justice for victims.
In a world where the Bill is passed into legislation in May, what would the timescale be for scaling up so we have parity of arms at inquests? What would be the timescale, and what would you need? I would like that on record.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q It is very interesting to hear the evidence you have both given. I am interested in not only the parity of arms but the concept of a public authority’s legal representation being necessary and proportionate. We have heard a lot of evidence that those with unlimited public funds at their disposal tend to think that what is necessary and proportionate is a very large legal team. Obviously, inquests are not supposed to be adversarial—we know that, in some instances, they become adversarial. What do you think is necessary and proportionate from the point of view of a public authority? One way of getting parity of arms is to cut down the number of lawyers that public authorities are paying to attend inquests.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Thank you. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. I regret that I had to interrupt at the end. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear oral evidence from the chief coroner of England and Wales. We have until 4.35 pm for this panel. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
I am the shadow Justice Minister. To start with, may I just check how you would like to be addressed?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Thank you, Judge.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Thank you for that opening statement. It applies to anybody who might have criticisms of elements of the Bill or views on it; we should not translate those into a lack of sympathy for the families or what they have gone through. As time is short, it is easier to ask you outright: what concerns do you have about how the Bill might be operationalised?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q I do not know whether you heard, but in an earlier session I asked how we are going to decide what is sufficient or adequate representation for public authorities. The evidence we heard was that coroners are very well placed to adjudicate on what would be adequate and appropriate representation. Do you share that view?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q We also heard in evidence that court judges in other settings make decisions about appropriate costs and so on. With some training and support, could coroners be asked to fulfil a similar role in inquests?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q This is a separate line of questioning, but the question of whether the experience of the coroners process is always a positive one for families is not a new issue. Some of my constituents have had what I think I can fairly say were not positive experiences, where coroners have had to be changed, and only because those constituents raised concerns. Do you still have concerns that there is not consistency in the fair management of inquests, from the perspective of bereaved families?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q Constituents of mine—such as the parents of Ida Lock, a baby whose death due to failings in care was preventable—have described inquests to me where the behaviour of public bodies made the inquest adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Information had to be dragged out of public bodies, and there were hostile legal teams. As a coroner, do you recognise that picture? What challenges does that behaviour give to coroners in their duties? Do you think that the Bill will change that situation?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q Do you think that the Bill will help to improve that situation?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q The original Hillsborough inquests, which were the longest in legal history at the time, in 1990, did not answer the four statutory questions in respect of each and every one of those who died who were the subject of them. They were, indeed, used as a way of overturning Taylor. That is what my constituents who I met when I became an MP told me was the effect of that inquest. It was not the inquest; it was actually the Hillsborough independent panel that answered those four statutory questions, but unfortunately that did not happen for 24 years. Do you believe that this Bill, and introducing legal representation for families and the concept of parity, might serve to address that kind of problem that you get when inquests become adversarial—as, increasingly, some of them do—or do you believe it might serve to prompt more inquests to become adversarial? Do you have a concern about that?
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q Do you think that the parity of arms, however it is achieved—whether it is bringing down the level of representation of the public authorities or increasing the level of representation of the bereaved families—might make things less adversarial and better? You have raised some concerns about the extra work it might lead to coroners having to do.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
I am afraid that this will be the last question.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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?
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
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.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear oral evidence from the independent public advocate. We have until 4.55 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witness could briefly introduce herself for the record.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Are those your key points? I have some further questions.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
It would be; thank you.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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.
Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)
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?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q We have not met before, but may I call you Cindy?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q Thank you.
Thank you for your very extensive evidence, which is very impressive from someone who has been in post for just two months. However, I wanted to ask you about your previous experience—we got little CVs for the witnesses—as a commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and in the transformation of the Metropolitan police following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. You have extensive experience in very relevant areas. Can you comment on the scale and size of the task in front of us with this Bill? It is very extensive and lists a large number of public authorities. Can you comment on that?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q Well, you have got the duty of candour, the code of ethics, the code of conduct and the new offences. Do you feel that that represents a challenge for large public organisations?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q And you know all about cultural change, following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry—
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We have about a minute and a half left if Maria Eagle wants to ask a question.
Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool Garston)
Q In view of what you have said, do you think that your current powers are adequate? If it were in order for us to put something about your role into the Bill, would you think that your powers ought to be expanded and, if so, in what way? Very quickly.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Order. I am sorry, but I have to stop you there. That is the end of the allocated time for the Committee to ask you questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence and for taking the time to speak to us. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We will now hear oral evidence from the Care Quality Commission, NHS Resolution and NHS England. We have until 5.30 pm for this panel. I would appreciate it if the witnesses could introduce themselves for the record.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Before we do, there are three witnesses and a number of Members want to ask questions, so Members should bear in mind that we will not necessarily have time for all those questions if they ask the same questions of all three witnesses.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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.
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)
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.
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
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?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q My understanding is that some NHS organisations currently view being transparent as the legal risk. Do you think the Bill will change attitudes, in that it flips the legal risk on to being non-transparent? I have struggled, in representing my constituents, with the fact that this is about not just processes, or even law, but culture. It is about changing the culture of a care organisation that responds to harm not by trying to find out what happened and stop it happening, but by trying to cover its own back. Will both NHS England and NHS Resolution speak to that?
Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)
Q Do you think it is accurate that some organisations in the NHS still see being transparent, and admitting harm and problems, as the legal risk?
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q I should declare that I worked in the health service for 33 years—not all politicians are political careerists. You are all very senior people, and obviously very experienced, but I want to get behind the corporate and ask for your personal opinions, based on your experience. My colleague drew attention to the fact that so many people in the health service have tried to blow the whistle and suffered serious detriment; in many cases, people have lost their jobs. If someone had blown the whistle on the infected blood scandal, thousands of lives would have been saved and the public purse would have been saved quite literally billions of pounds. Even with all the measures that have been put in place, why are people still suffering serious detriment when they try to blow the whistle? I am asking for your personal opinions. Professor Fowler, I will put that to you first, because you have experience in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
Seamus Logan (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
Q How would we do that?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Professor Fowler, does NHS England do anything to fulfil that function—look at all the reports in aggregate and summarise and share them?
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
Q Do you think we need another body to do the job of following up on PFDs specifically?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q Dr Chopra, you have talked a lot about cultural change and how we effect that. Do you agree that the ineffectiveness of the duty of candour in the NHS is due to the fact that it applies to the organisation and not the command?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
The duty of candour applies to the organisation, not to the individual—in other words, the chief executive. Do you feel that is where it loses its power and does not permeate through the organisation?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool West Derby)
Q I sat in an inquest open day, and we touched on the Lampard statutory public inquiry into the deaths of mental health patients in Essex. That started off as an independent review, but due to the lack of candour and co-operation of staff and senior management, it had to be converted to a statutory inquiry to compel evidence and witnesses. How are we going to use what we are talking about today to enhance the ability to change that culture? How is the NHS going to do that? We do not want a repeat of that.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
Order. Regrettably—I am terribly regretful today—that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
James Asser (Labour, West Ham and Beckton)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. Before we hear from this panel, I need to declare an interest. From 2014 to 2015 I worked for Hacked Off, alongside one of the witnesses.
Peter Dowd (Labour, Bootle)
We note the point of order from James Asser—thank you.
We will now hear oral evidence from Flora Page KC, WhistleblowersUK, Second Sight and Hacked Off. We have until 6.5 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? I am beginning to sound like a stuck record.
Kieran Mullan (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle)
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?