A divisionDivision No. 56 · Tuesday, 14 July 2026· Commons· Government Accountability

Public Office (Accountability) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 3

93Ayes
323Noes
Defeated · majority 230 · Government won
232 did not vote
Aye92No324DID NOT VOTE · 232

648 Members · Aye 93 · No 323 · DNV 232 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 14 July 2026 on Amendment 3 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill at Report Stage (the stage at which the full House of Commons examines and can alter a bill after it has been through committee). The amendment was defeated by 323 votes to 93. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill centres on a legal duty of candour for public authorities and officials, requiring them to be honest and transparent, particularly following major incidents. The available Hansard extracts do not set out the precise text or effect of Amendment 3 specifically, so its detailed content cannot be confirmed from the record. The debate more broadly addressed questions about post-legislative review, the role of a standing public advocate, and whether the intelligence services should be subject to the same accountability provisions as other public bodies. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 55 voting Liberal Democrats and all 5 voting Greens backed the amendment, as did all 4 voting Plaid Cymru members, all 4 voting Democratic Unionist Party members, all 4 voting Reform UK members, and all 6 voting SNP members. Labour, by contrast, voted overwhelmingly against: 285 Labour MPs and 38 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted no. Seven Labour MPs voted aye, a small rebellion against the government position. The result mirrors two related divisions on the same day, Amendment 19 (defeated 412 to 104) and Amendment 199 (defeated 409 to 102), suggesting a consistent pattern of opposition amendments being rejected by the Labour majority at this Report Stage.

Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 3 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, proposing a change to how the bill holds public officeholders to account
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 3, preferring the bill as it stood without this particular change to public office accountability provisions
§ 01Who voted how.416 voting Members · 232 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The party-line column is inferred from how cohesively each party voted, not a published whip: a clear one-way majority of a party’s voters reads as a line, a close division reads as “Split”.

Party
Party line
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Voted No
7
285
68
Conservative and Unionist Party
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Voted Aye
55
0
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
38
5
Independent
4
0
9
Reform UK
Voted Aye
4
0
3
Scottish National Party
Voted Aye
6
0
1
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted Aye
5
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
1
0
1
Your Party
2
0
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · party line inferred from voting cohesion, not a published whip; “Split” = a close within-party division

§ 02From the debate.5 principal speakers
Catherine AtkinsonSupportiveDerby North
The Government amendments balance the duty of candour with national security by requiring individual officers to disclose information to their service head, not directly to inquiries, while maintaining accountability and preventing cover-ups.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (3,962 words)
Nick TimothyOpposedWest Suffolk
The duty of candour applied to intelligence and security services risks compromising allied intelligence relationships, revealing sources and methods, and creating unintended consequences; the Government's own January amendment was more appropriate.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (2,118 words)
Paula BarkerSupportiveLiverpool Wavertree
The Bill, particularly with the security services amendments, is essential to prevent cover-ups and ensure accountability, as demonstrated by Manchester Arena and Hillsborough; the duty must apply fully to intelligence agencies.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (929 words)
Jess Brown-FullerSupportiveChichester
The Bill is welcome and the security services amendment is a breakthrough; intelligence agencies have historically covered up misconduct and mechanisms already exist to protect sensitive information in closed sessions.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,734 words)
Derek TwiggSupportiveWidnes and Halewood
As an ISC member, the amended Bill addresses security concerns; the Intelligence and Security Committee's involvement was crucial to reaching agreement and the duty of candour now strikes the right balance.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,173 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0