Tessa Munt MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  You have already referred to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the fact that that puts whistleblowing into the framework of an employment law issue, and the fact that it does not protect against retaliation. The focus then is on a whistleblower proving that they are deliberately being acted against, as opposed to on the wrongdoing done by the organisation in the first place; when they come out of the employment tribunal, they are then very often blacklisted and cannot work again. Do you feel that the Bill provides enough anti-corruption effort to ensure that, in particular, we could have prevented the Post Office scandal? As I understand it, 47,000 cases are waiting in the employment tribunal at the moment—that is the current backlog. Once this legislation comes into play, my sense is that that 47,000 will escalate beyond belief, but I will leave that with you. Does the Bill go some way to sorting this out? James Killen: The short answer is no. What strikes me most in the Bill is that it makes the duty of candour an individual thing, and focuses very much on the corruption that goes on at the level of the chief execs. In my mind, and certainly having listened to the health people earlier, the majority of duty holders will be people who are on the minimum wage and potentially part time—what I would class as vulnerable duty holders. Those people are going to be placed in the situation of having to choose between a potential criminal sanction for not exercising their duty of candour and speaking out against a corrupt boss who will potentially pull all the levers they have in the business to destroy their career. They are going to choose between their careers and families or a potential criminal sanction. For me, the largest omission in this Bill is that there is no form of criminal sanction for interfering in another person’s duty of candour. Culture and so on was talked about a lot earlier, and there is something there—I agree with everything that has been said about the idea of an office for the whistleblower, because I think that would take all of this away, but, if we are speaking about maybe a 60% or 80% solution, some sort of clause in the Bill that gives a criminal sanction to other people within an organisation for interfering with somebody else’s duty would be key.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. I invite you to pass your comments to the Chair in writing at some point, if that is possible, because I do not have time to ask you about that in detail now, but I am very interested in your views. Richard Miller: I fully agree with what Mr Minnoch has said on that point. The Law Society would also be very happy to provide more detailed views on this issue in due course.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I wish to make a declaration: I am a vice-chair and director of WhistleblowersUK. That is a not-for-profit organisation and I receive no financial recompense for anything that I do. Thank you to the witnesses. I am very sorry to hear what happened. Professor Waters : It is still going on.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I declared earlier that I have an interest in whistleblowing, and I wondered if I could ask you a question in relation to that. Those who are alive and well who whistleblow against their organisations do not necessarily have the benefit of going into an employment tribunal with any legal assistance. Might the Bill go further in that direction and assist in some way? Very often, those individuals are taking on incredibly large corporations that have ranks of lawyers. Do you have a view on that? Chris Minnoch: That is not something I have necessarily prepared for, but I appreciate that it is an important point, so thank you for asking about it. For many years now, there has been a deficiency when it comes to employment cases, particularly since the removal of employment law from the scope of the legal aid scheme. As an organisation, it is important to legal aid lawyers and their clients—similarly, from the Law Society’s perspective, I am sure I would not be wrong in saying this—that people taking actions in the employment tribunal or facing proceedings as a result of whistleblowing have access to legal advice and representation. There is a certain element where people who benefit from union membership are partially protected by that or can have resources made available to them, but there is a gaping hole in the legal aid scheme at the moment around employment law and employment cases for employees. We would hope that the Government would consider filling that, because it is a very important point.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I know. I salute your courage. Thank you both for saying what you did. On whistleblowing, what do you feel there might be in the way of protections within this scenario? What protection should there be for whistleblowers? Professor Waters: Speaking just from my own experience—not as a lawyer or anything—in the last nearly three years since Ruth’s death I have been contacted by various people within Ofsted who shared some really quite disturbing information about its behaviour and its rewarding of certain members of staff who were associated with Caversham primary inspection and other appalling cases. When I have asked if they will speak out, they have said that they do not dare. They have to sign some form of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I have been contacted by numerous headteachers who have been traumatised by Ofsted inspections and have lost their jobs, health and nearly their lives. They have not been able to speak out because they were made to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to get some money to support their families. It just seems that at every level mechanisms are put in place to do the absolute opposite of what inquests and inquiries should be doing, suppress legitimate concerns and defend people who are causing active and ongoing harm. The stronger the defence—the protections—for whistleblowers, the better, and maybe, finally, all the people from Ofsted who have contacted me will be able to go public with the things they have told me. Deborah Coles: The only thing I would add to that is that, in the context of the Hillsborough law, we are talking about trying to effect legal, cultural and practical change. If we can help rectify the culture of cover-up, obfuscation, denial and defensiveness that occurs when things go wrong—we are talking across inquests and inquiries not only when people have died, but for other injustices—one would hope that that will help victims in the long term, because it will enable honesty and truth telling. Hopefully that will permeate across the system to those who have important evidence to contribute to inquiries and inquests.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Steve, I remember the day you heard the news that there was going to be a proper public inquiry and it was very touching. I am glad that you are here. How do both of you feel about asking people who want to report to go outside of their primary employer, or the organisation for which they work? The Independent Public Advocate, who we have heard from this afternoon, is attached to that point. Do you think there is any value in requiring bodies to report their spending on legal fees and the like related to inquiries, independent panels, or whatever is set up, in their annual report and accounts or in their annual report to council, or whatever it is? Andy, will you answer first? We will then go to Steve. Andy Burnham: If I can quickly pick up your point, Tessa, I absolutely agree that there should be full transparency on legal expenditure by public bodies, including police bodies and NHS trusts. I think that the lack of a requirement has led to very unfair situations when the state has lawyered up, as I said before. To me, the Bill should create an entirely new regime that does not allow bereaved families to face the full might of the state, when they have barely any legal representation.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to declare that I am a director and vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit organisation.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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? Charlotte Hennessy: We are very confident. We have literally given 10 years of our lives, fighting to be here in this place. We have to acknowledge that Keir Starmer is the only Prime Minister who has endorsed the Bill. I would like to remind everyone that our Prime Minister made me a promise. He made a pledge to the public. It is now your duty to ensure that you fulfil that promise as well. If we were not confident in the Bill, we would not be sitting here today. Steve Kelly: Just touching on something that Seamus was talking about before, about changing cultures within authorities and so on, I would like to give you an example that has never left me. During the Hillsborough inquests, a man in his 40s or early 50s was giving evidence. He was an ex-PC—at the time of Hillsborough, he was probably a young PC. He was being questioned about the culture within the South Yorkshire police force at the time in 1989. I will never forget that man saying, “When you used to go Snig Hill, and you’d be walking along the corridor, you’d hold your head down when you’d see the bosses. You daren’t look at them, because we were frightened of them.” How could we encourage young officers like that to become whistleblowers? You couldn’t. We need a culture change. I thought that was a great point that this is something this law might do for not only policemen, but any public servants—anyone deserves support if they are trying to right a wrong. That young policeman must have taken that with him to those inquests. I remember looking at his face and thinking, “That’s the first time you’ve got that out.” The burden was on him all those years as well. It should not be like that. Hopefully, the Hillsborough law will support that. Sue Roberts: You are right; the culture changes have to be led from the very top—from the CEOs of these companies. Either they have to want to make this change happen or they need to move on.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What do you feel are the potential risks and benefits of requiring permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute? Tom Guest: Let me explain how the DPP’s consent to prosecute works. In most criminal offences, a private prosecutor or the police can commence proceedings—so they get a summons or they charge someone, the suspect becomes a defendant and they go into the court system automatically. Where the DPP’s consent is required, that means that the permission of the CPS is required to prosecute. We apply our standard tests to that: “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute?” and “Is a prosecution in the public interest?” They are the same tests that we apply to a prosecution. If we conclude that those tests are met, we take the prosecution forward ourselves. If we conclude that they are not met, the case does not go into the court system. The purpose of the DPP’s consent is to make sure that unmeritorious or vexatious prosecutions cannot get taken forward. Certainly, in terms of the misconduct offences, sometimes there are private prosecutors who wish to take forward unmeritorious prosecutions, so it is a check and balance on that. If it is a meritorious prosecution, however, we will go ahead with the prosecution ourselves.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. Tom Guest: It is right to identify that the extension of liability is only to direct contractual relationships, so not necessarily further down the line. I would make two qualifications to that. First, we will look at the evidence and the precise contractual relationship—what the evidence of the contract is. Secondly, I think we are talking about clause 4(2) here, which would also cover a private contractor who had a health and safety responsibility in connection with the incident. Although it does not cover the contractual relationship further down the line, that is an alternative route to liability.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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? Pete Weatherby: No. The reason I have majored on command responsibilities is because that is a weakness in the Bill, but the Bill applies across the piece and to all public servants at all times, with the general duty as well as the duty of candour and assistance, which is the ancillary duty, if you like. So that is really important. We are very keen to underline that this is an empowering Bill. In many of the cases—Hillsborough is a particularly good example—ordinary, decent police officers tried to tell the truth and were not allowed to tell the truth. This is a Bill that imposes a duty of candour across the piece. Everybody knows about it. Senior officers required junior officers to tell lies—this is the evidence they themselves gave on oath. That has to be stopped, and this Bill does that. We have tried to build in it those empowerment things, including whistleblowing—enhanced whistleblowing provisions and the like.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents is a cousin of Master Air Loadmaster Graham Forbes, who was one of the four crew members who died that day. The bereaved families were never informed that the MOD had sealed those documents for 100 years, and it took a BBC investigation for that to be revealed. Will the hon. Lady comment on that? It seems utterly outrageous that the families were not informed in the first instance.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I have done quite a lot of reading and received information from the family, but it is not clear to me the date on which the documents were sealed or by whom. Can the Minister confirm that? Who made the request that they be sealed, who made the decision that they should be sealed, and when was that decision made? I do not expect her to be able to answer off the top of her head, so I am happy for her to write to me.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly as has just been said, I asked earlier whether, and when, that practice had been changed. I would very much like to know the date on which that decision was made, the nature of the decision and its wording, which I would share with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  I understand why they have been sealed. I would like to know who made the decision to seal the documents for 100 years, and on what date it was made. It was clearly not in June 1994, because it lasts for 100 years. Somebody made the decision after that date to seal those documents.

• 26 Nov 2025 · 1994 RAF Chinook Crash · Hansard source

  More

  When the Minister replies, I wonder whether she might answer this question, with which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. When did the MOD stop allowing so many critical personnel on one flight? Those on board included members of MI5, RUC special branch and the British Army intelligence corps, as well as Northern Ireland security experts—almost all the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence capability on one flight. We know that in the case of the royal family, the monarch and the heir are not allowed to fly together. Will the Minister explain exactly when the MOD stopped the practice of putting everybody on one flight? Has that actually happened?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In Somerset, we were set back enormously by six years of council tax freeze during the early 2010s, under the Conservative-led council— [ Interruption. ] Council tax was frozen for six years, way in excess of what the Government had anticipated, leaving council finances in Somerset in dire straits.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to return to the listed places of worship scheme. Although departmental policy is to keep grant funding records for seven years, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport uses grant records only for the last three years, since 2022, as only that data is considered reliable. The Leader of the House will know that slots for Backbench Business debates are taken until the next King’s Speech, and there is a massive queue for Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates. However, in hope and endless optimism, may I ask him for a debate about financial record keeping? Neither the Secretary of State nor the Treasury can possibly assess the value, importance and impact of schemes like this if they have no idea where the money has gone, because record keeping is so poor, it is inaccurate, or the records have been lost.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Reoffending: Rehabilitation in Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for presenting the Committee’s statement. With the chief inspector of prisons recently concluding that the outcomes for children in custody are not improving and the urgent notification issued to Oakhill secure training centre, and given that it is children we are discussing, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conditions across the youth estate are completely unacceptable and, as recommended, the Government should produce an action plan for youth custody?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  Forgive me, but I am going to carry on. The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded. A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field. The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity. The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that? The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations? Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs. Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary. “People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions. And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.” I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women. Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits. Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better. Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a complex, chronic condition affecting multiple body systems. There is currently no cure or established treatment. The symptoms of ME go far beyond chronic fatigue or being very tired; the sickest patients lie alone in darkened rooms, sometimes unable to move or to speak—or, in the very worst cases, to swallow or to digest food. Even at the mildest end of this condition, people with ME who once had lives, hopes and dreams for the future live a shadow of their former lives. More than five years on from the start of the covid pandemic, it is timely to note how the numbers affected have increased. Approximately half of those with long covid go on to meet the diagnostic criteria for ME, so it is now estimated that 1.35 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms. That includes healthcare workers, teachers and other key workers who kept our country running at the height of the pandemic. Add in carers, and even more are directly affected. Importantly, there is a gendered dimension, with women five times more likely than men to develop ME. Despite the devastating toll of the condition, people with ME have endured decades of substandard and sometimes downright unsafe healthcare, with pitifully little funding for research. In spite of the lack of robust evidence to this effect, ME is treated as though the condition is psychiatric.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Myalgic Encephalomyelitis · Hansard source

  More

  I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case. Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments. Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?