Public Office (Accountability) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 199
102Ayes
409Noes
Defeated · majority 307 · Government won138 did not vote
649 Members · Aye 102 · No 409 · DNV 138 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament defeated Amendment 199 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill on 14 July 2026, by 409 votes to 102. The bill is designed to strengthen accountability for those in public office, and the vote took place at Report Stage, the point at which MPs can propose changes to a bill before it moves to the House of Lords. The precise content of Amendment 199 is not available from the debate record provided. The grouping notice from Deputy Speaker Ms Nusrat Ghani indicates the amendment was debated alongside a government new clause and other new clauses dealing with post-legislative assessment of a legal duty of candour, the role of a standing public advocate following major incidents, and mechanisms for independent panels to collate evidence. Whether Amendment 199 itself addressed any of these themes cannot be confirmed from the available material. What is clear is that the government opposed the amendment and the No side prevailed by a large margin. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 293 Labour MPs and all 37 Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted No, as did all 53 Liberal Democrats, all six Scottish National Party members, all five Greens, and all four Plaid Cymru members. The Ayes came almost entirely from Conservative MPs, 91 of whom supported the amendment, joined by five Reform UK members, four Democratic Unionist Party members, and two independents. No Labour, Liberal Democrat, or SNP member voted Aye, making this a government majority comfortably defeating an opposition-led proposal.
Voting Aye meant
Support Amendment 199 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, the nature of which cannot be determined without debate transcripts
Voting No meant
Oppose Amendment 199 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, with the large No majority suggesting this reflects the government's position against the proposed change
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
0
293
67
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
91
0
25
Liberal Democrats
Voted No
0
53
18
Labour and Co-operative Party
Voted No
0
37
6
Independent
—
2
5
6
Reform UK
Voted Aye
5
0
2
Scottish National Party
Voted No
0
6
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Voted Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Voted No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
Voted No
0
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
1
1
Your Party
—
0
1
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
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
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) →
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 aye · Read full speech (2,118 words) →
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) →
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 no · Read full speech (1,734 words) →
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) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0