Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) — Hansard, 4 December 2025
Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) - Hansard - UK Parliament
UK Parliament
Hansard
Commons4 December 2025
Public Bill Committees
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Debated on Thursday 4 December 2025
Dec
4
2025
Download text
Back to top
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs:
Peter Dowd, † Sir Roger Gale
† Asser, James
(West Ham and Beckton)
(Lab)
† Atkinson, Catherine
(Derby North)
(Lab)
† Botterill, Jade
(Ossett and Denby Dale)
(Lab)
† Byrne, Ian
(Liverpool West Derby)
(Lab)
† Collinge, Lizzi
(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Lab)
† Cross, Harriet
(Gordon and Buchan)
(Con)
† Davies-Jones, Alex
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Dewhirst, Charlie
(Bridlington and The Wolds)
(Con)
Eagle, Maria
(Liverpool Garston)
(Lab)
† Irons, Natasha
(Croydon East)
(Lab)
† Logan, Seamus
(Aberdeenshire North and Moray East)
(SNP)
† McAllister, Douglas
(West Dunbartonshire)
(Lab)
† Midgley, Anneliese
(Knowsley)
(Lab)
Morrison, Mr Tom
(Cheadle)
(LD)
† Mullan, Dr Kieran
(Bexhill and Battle)
(Con)
† Munt, Tessa
(Wells and Mendip Hills)
(LD)
† Powell, Joe
(Kensington and Bayswater)
(Lab)
Kevin Candy and Claire Cozens,
Committee Clerk
s
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Thursday 4 December 2025
[Sir Roger Gale
in the Chair
]
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Clause 11
Offence of misleading the public
11.30am
Ian Byrne
(Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 30 on
Share contribution 30 on
Share contribution 30 via
Copy link to contribution 30 to clipboard
Copy link
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 31 on
Share contribution 31 on
Share contribution 31 via
Copy link to contribution 31 to clipboard
Copy link
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 52, in clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Ian Byrne
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 32 on
Share contribution 32 on
Share contribution 32 via
Copy link to contribution 32 to clipboard
Copy link
Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts.
The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation.
The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection.
The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice
(Alex Davies-Jones)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 33 on
Share contribution 33 on
Share contribution 33 via
Copy link to contribution 33 to clipboard
Copy link
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member
for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent.
Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused, or had the potential to cause harm will achieve that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why.
The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now. That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure in mind where, at a minimum, potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm.
The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases. The harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill.
The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. Hillsborough families spoke of the importance of individual accountability, and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.
Ian Byrne
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 34 on
Share contribution 34 on
Share contribution 34 via
Copy link to contribution 34 to clipboard
Copy link
I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response and the clarity that she has added. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tessa Munt
(Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 35 on
Share contribution 35 on
Share contribution 35 via
Copy link to contribution 35 to clipboard
Copy link
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 11, page 10, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 36 on
Share contribution 36 on
Share contribution 36 via
Copy link to contribution 36 to clipboard
Copy link
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 53, in clause 11, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“’journalism’ means articles for media outlets and news sites. It does not extend to press statements, commentary and social media posts.”
Tessa Munt
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 37 on
Share contribution 37 on
Share contribution 37 via
Copy link to contribution 37 to clipboard
Copy link
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 30 removes the exemption for journalism from the offence of misleading the public, showing that no one, including journalists or public officials writing in a journalistic capacity—including in internal newsletters—can avoid accountability for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to close the loophole that might allow public officials to evade that accountability by presenting misleading information under the guise of journalism. The rationale is to strengthen public trust in Government communications, ensure consistency in applying the law regardless of the medium used, and prevent deliberate attempts to mislead the public through media channels.
The amendment responds to various concerns raised by accountability campaigners, transparency advocates and parliamentary scrutiny bodies that the exemption could be exploited, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the offence. We have seen with cases that we heard about last Thursday when the Committee took evidence, and with some cases that we discussed on Tuesday, that we cannot ignore the damaging role the media has played in many situations. Some of those examples shed light on public servants using the media to set the narrative, with some of the most awful and damaging consequences for people’s lives and for shedding light on the truth.
We know that—appallingly—the media has been used to set the narrative. With amendment 30, we are thinking about the public and how they perceive this place in particular, and the power structures that move around it. The sense is that legitimacy is key.
Ian Byrne
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 38 on
Share contribution 38 on
Share contribution 38 via
Copy link to contribution 38 to clipboard
Copy link
I want to reinforce what the hon. Lady said regarding the definition of journalism. It must be tightly defined to prevent the bogus defence that we have seen recently, as made by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—also known as Tommy Robinson. If the purpose of this exclusion is to exempt public service journalists—for example, those working at the BBC—from scope, then it should say that explicitly. There is no reason why it cannot say that. Otherwise, public officials and servants are not journalists, and there is no reason to exempt a lie asserted in the course of writing or broadcasting.
Seamus Logan
(Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 39 on
Share contribution 39 on
Share contribution 39 via
Copy link to contribution 39 to clipboard
Copy link
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger. I rise to support the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and to draw attention to some examples of why the amendment is important. Members will be familiar with the hacking problem that we had some years ago. In fact, I think one journalist actually served a prison sentence in relation to that. There were many others who may or may not have been involved in that affair. Members will recall how the programme on the Post Office brought huge attention to that scandal and, in fact, led to a major review of the situation. A similar programme called “The Hack”, which may not have gathered as much attention, highlighted the vast extent of the problem of collusion between journalists and the police. Members
will also recall that Leveson 2 was cancelled. Leveson 2 was, as I recall, designed to provide stronger regulation for journalism and the media in general. I think we should be concerned about this very sweeping exclusion for journalism, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
Tessa Munt
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 40 on
Share contribution 40 on
Share contribution 40 via
Copy link to contribution 40 to clipboard
Copy link
I want to put on record that I recognise that journalism has an important place in shedding light on various situations. I understand that, but I am concerned that this particular wording covers everything. I write journalistically every day of my life. I suspect that I have effectively written a whole bunch of journalism in my notes. I publish stuff from my notes, speeches that I make in Parliament and all sorts of things that could be considered journalism. I am going to plead with the Minister to find a way, maybe through discussions with Members, to contain the provision in some way so that we can keep the good—we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—and somehow define what it is that is actually meant by journalism. I wait to hear from the Minister on that.
The Chair
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 41 on
Share contribution 41 on
Share contribution 41 via
Copy link to contribution 41 to clipboard
Copy link
Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that Members are allowed to speak more than once, but that was an intervention.
Tessa Munt
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 42 on
Share contribution 42 on
Share contribution 42 via
Copy link to contribution 42 to clipboard
Copy link
It was a long one. I am sorry, Sir Roger.
Seamus Logan
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 43 on
Share contribution 43 on
Share contribution 43 via
Copy link to contribution 43 to clipboard
Copy link
Thank you, Sir Roger.
Alex Davies-Jones
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 44 on
Share contribution 44 on
Share contribution 44 via
Copy link to contribution 44 to clipboard
Copy link
On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play.
Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.
Seamus Logan
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 45 on
Share contribution 45 on
Share contribution 45 via
Copy link to contribution 45 to clipboard
Copy link
Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That
initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.
Alex Davies-Jones
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 46 on
Share contribution 46 on
Share contribution 46 via
Copy link to contribution 46 to clipboard
Copy link
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them.
It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity.
In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.
Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.
11.45am
Tessa Munt
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 48 on
Share contribution 48 on
Share contribution 48 via
Copy link to contribution 48 to clipboard
Copy link
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn
.
Amendment made:
5, Clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert “by—
(i) a recognised news publisher, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 56 of that Act), or
(ii) a person in the course of working for such a publisher.”
.
—
(Alex Davies-
Jones
.)
This amendment clarifies that the journalism exemption from the offence of misleading the public only applies to media entities and those that work for them
.
Dr Kieran Mullan
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 49 on
Share contribution 49 on
Share contribution 49 via
Copy link to contribution 49 to clipboard
Copy link
I beg to move amendment 2, clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(10) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director for Public Prosecutions.”
This amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.
The Chair
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 50 on
Share contribution 50 on
Share contribution 50 via
Copy link to contribution 50 to clipboard
Copy link
With this, it will be convenient to discuss clause 11 stand part.
Dr Mullan
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 51 on
Share contribution 51 on
Share contribution 51 via
Copy link to contribution 51 to clipboard
Copy link
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger.
As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false.
However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level.
It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly
makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation.
Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that