.jpg)
_
The UK Parliament has evolved over its history to meet contemporary times while retaining ancient procedures and conventions. It has, without a written constitution, had to provide a means to hold the elected government to account through the convention of ministerial accountability. Historically, Parliament accepted petitions from the public through Private Bills on a wide range of subjects, which often dealt with construction work or the powers of local utilities. However, as the role of government expanded over the last century, the number of Private Bills declined in favour of Public Bills, which are initiated by the government and fall within its exclusive authority, especially if they have financial implications. For instance, the Abortion Act 1967 and the Homosexual Reform Act 1967 began as private bills adopted into law as public acts by the government of the day.
In recent years, British society has undergone significant shifts. Economic pressures, Brexit, and global conflicts have contributed to a rise in popular politics. Pressure groups and victims’ groups, amplified by social media, have become increasingly influential. The actions of victims and their families have proven effective in creating a political lobby pushing for reform, particularly concerning public inquiries and investigations. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-25 is a direct reaction to this pressure. It proposes the introduction of a statutory “duty of candour” on those involved in inquiries, intended to make public bodies and officials more accountable.
This note seeks to explain the context and potential significance of this duty. A series of recent, high-profile public inquiries—including the 2024 Infected Blood Inquiry the ongoing inquiry into Covid, the Grenfell Tower fire, and the Post Office Horizon Scandal—have exposed deep-seated issues in public administration. The UK has struggled to learn from its mistakes, with uncertainty over whether inquiries are for administrative improvement or overall accountability. This is compounded by dissatisfaction with the ineffective common law offence of misconduct in a public office. The hope is that a duty of candour will mark a major improvement in administration, the conduct of witnesses, and the collection of evidence at inquiries and inquests.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024/2025 introduces a specific legal obligation for public authorities and officials to act with transparency when engaging with inquiries, inquests, and similar investigations. This is defined as a “duty of candour and assistance.” The Bill links this duty to accompanying codes of ethical conduct and contains several key obligations. These include a duty to proactively notify inquiry leaders of any information in their possession that is of “particular significance” to the investigation, a requirement to provide any reasonable assistance to the inquiry, including the disclosure of important information and the correction of misapprehensions, and a duty to revisit previous statements or evidence to correct any errors.
The Bill’s scope extends beyond public bodies to include individuals who hold a “relevant public responsibility” in connection with an incident under investigation. It also introduces significant legal changes: the creation of a new criminal offence for failing to uphold the duty of candour, and the replacement of the vague common law offence of misconduct in a public office with two new, more clearly defined statutory offences. Finally, it proposes the introduction of “parity of representation” for bereaved families at inquests involving public authorities, which will require a money resolution to support the necessary legal aid.
The origins of these proposals lie in the profound dissatisfaction of victims from inquiries such as the Hillsborough disaster, the Post Office scandal, and the Grenfell Tower fire. Public pressure has grown from the belief that truth is too difficult to establish when evidence is withheld or not given candidly. The concept of a duty of candour is not entirely new; a specific duty was introduced for NHS Trusts and healthcare professionals through regulations in 2014 following a number of inquiries into healthcare failures. The NHS experience has informed the current debate, although its effectiveness in truly changing the culture—rather than becoming a tick-box exercise—remains a matter of discussion.
Public inquiries are a long-standing feature of the British administrative landscape, designed to establish facts, identify mistakes, errors, or systems failures, and attribute accountability. They take many forms. Some are informal, ad-hoc reviews, while others are statutory inquiries set up by government ministers in response to a major event or crisis. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 was a landmark piece of legislation that situated the role of inquiries as integral to public administration and justice. Over time, inquiries have become increasingly juridical and adversarial, often chaired by distinguished judges, with hearings that are frequently televised. Consequently, they are time-consuming and expensive, and the presence of legal counsel has increased where financial interests or reputations are at stake.
The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the modern statutory framework for many public inquiries, granting them the power to compel witnesses to provide evidence and providing certain legal safeguards. However, this form of statutory inquiry has been criticised for perceived failings in its rules, and the current government has promised to review the policy. Alongside statutory inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries may take a number of forms, including committees of Privy Councillors or Royal Commissions. There are also Parliamentary select committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, that perform similar investigative roles, overseeing the work of audit and accountability.
The Bill’s genesis is inextricably linked to the decades-long campaign for justice by the families of the 97 Liverpool Football Club fans who died in the crush at the Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield in April 1989. In addition to the deaths, an estimated 766 people were seriously injured. The initial investigations, including an inquiry by a senior judge, as well as civil, criminal, and police disciplinary investigations, were widely seen as flawed. Families remained aggrieved that relevant information had not been disclosed and that public officials, including the police, were not forthcoming in their understanding of the evidence.
A major breakthrough came in December 2009 when the then Home Secretary established the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Its purpose was to secure access to all documents and make sense of the vast, undisclosed archive. The Panel’s work provided crucial new evidence that led to new inquests being held between 2014 and 2016. The juries at these inquests reached the landmark verdict that the fans had played no role in causing the disaster, directly contradicting claims made in the original investigations.
Following this, in November 2017, Bishop James Jones, who had chaired the Independent Panel, published an influential paper titled “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. It detailed the institutional defensiveness and tactics employed by public officials that made it nearly impossible to hold individuals to account for the Hillsborough event. A key recommendation was the introduction of a “duty of candour” and, crucially, publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families at inquests to ensure they could participate on an equal footing with the public bodies represented by extensive legal teams. This concept became known as the “Hillsborough Law.”
The campaign gathered momentum, and a Private Members’ Bill containing these elements was introduced in 2017. Further support came from Lord Bach’s Commission on Access to Justice, the Justice Committee Report on the Coroner Service in 2020, and a 2023 report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the proposal of a Hillsborough law. The proposals were eventually included in the Labour party’s manifesto and promised in the 2024 King’s speech, leading to the current Bill.
The duty of candour is found in Part 1 of the 2025 Bill. It requires public authorities and officials to carry out their responsibilities with “candour, transparency and frankness and to do so in the public interest.” This is supported by a positive duty in clause 2 to notify inquiry leaders if they possess information that would be of “particular significance.” Part 2 of the Bill sets out ethical standards and creates an offence in clause 11 of misleading the public. Part 3 includes the abolition of the common law offence of misconduct in public office and its replacement in clauses 12 and 13 with new, more clearly defined offences. Part 4 contains clauses addressing the principle of “parity of representation” at inquiries and investigations.
Media outlets and the main political parties have been broadly supportive, reflecting the success of victims’ lobbying efforts. However, some have expressed caveats about the Bill’s scope and enforceability. The lessons from the NHS’s duty of candour are reasonably encouraging, with some limitations. A call for evidence review in 2024 on the duty pointed to the need for cultural change within the health service, better training, and more consistent application. While the Care Quality Commission, responsible for oversight, has received some criticisms about inconsistencies in applying the standards, positive responses suggest the duty has the potential to drive change.
Supporters claim the Bill will be a “game changer” for inquiries, helping to break a climate of defensiveness that is commonly regarded as a failure in public bodies. The inclusion of criminal sanctions, such as fines or even imprisonment for wilful non-compliance, is a controversial innovation. However, it is debatable whether the criminal law alone can bring about the desired changes. An open and transparent system must be created through good leadership, careful management, and a commitment to education and training, rather than solely through the threat of punishment.
A significant challenge lies in the hybrid nature of modern public service delivery, where public administration works alongside contracted-out services from private sector entities. It is here, at the intersection of different cultures, that issues may arise. The ongoing inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal, where a faulty IT system supplied by a private company led to the wrongful conviction of hundreds of sub-postmasters, is a stark example. Similarly, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry has highlighted issues at the interface between public and private bodies in the provision and certification of building materials. In these contexts, financial motives and commercial confidentiality may conflict with a culture of disclosure and candour.
The Bill’s success also depends on genuine collaboration with victims in setting up inquiries, including input on their terms of reference and the choice of chair, a process that has proven complex and divisive.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2025 is the result of intense public dissatisfaction with inquiries and a broader decline in public confidence in state institutions, from the courts and Parliament to the National Health Service. The Bill has many laudable aims: to create a more transparent and accountable administration and to ensure that victims and the public can trust the process of holding officials to account. It is unclear, however, whether it will achieve all that its supporters hope for.
While legislation can set a general framework, its implementation must be accompanied by initiatives to reform the culture of inquiries and investigations. Leadership is required to drive forward a more open and inclusive approach. The modern system of administration, embracing a hybrid of public and private sectors, reflects the strengths and weaknesses of each, and the duty of candour must navigate this complex reality.
Predicting the Bill’s success is difficult. However, it is a necessary first step to regain public confidence. A lengthy period of adjustment is likely, and leaders must be convinced to avoid the mistakes that led to the disasters currently under inquiry. The main question that remains is whether the new bill would have prevented the failures seen in recent inquiries. The voices of victims were influential in the Hillsborough Bill, and they will continue to oversee its ultimate success or failure.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
