A divisionDivision No. 58 · Tuesday, 14 July 2026· Commons· Government Accountability

Public Office (Accountability) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 19

104Ayes
412Noes
Defeated · majority 308 · Government won
133 did not vote
Aye104No412DID NOT VOTE · 133

649 Members · Aye 104 · No 412 · DNV 133 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 14 July 2026 to reject Amendment 19 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill at Report Stage (the stage at which the full House examines and can alter a bill after it leaves committee). The amendment was defeated by 412 votes to 104. It would have required the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months of the Act passing, a report assessing whether the standing public advocate should be given expanded powers to gather information from victims and bereaved families, and whether the advocate should be able to instigate independent panels to oversee how public authorities and officials respond after major incidents. The amendment addresses a practical question about accountability after disasters and public authority failures: whether the standing public advocate, a role created to give victims an independent voice, should have stronger tools to collect evidence and commission scrutiny panels. Defeating the amendment means no statutory obligation exists to carry out this specific review. The government argued its own Government New Clause 9 was sufficient, making the additional reporting requirement unnecessary. The people most directly affected are victims and bereaved families who rely on major public inquiries and investigations to secure accountability from the institutions involved. The vote split sharply along party lines. All 294 voting Labour MPs, all 37 Labour and Co-operative MPs, all 53 Liberal Democrats, all 6 Scottish National Party MPs, all 5 Greens, and all 4 Plaid Cymru MPs voted against the amendment. The 93 Conservative MPs present all voted for it, joined by 5 Reform UK MPs, 4 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and 2 Independents. There were no notable cross-party rebels. The result was consistent with other divisions on the same bill the same day, including a defeat on Amendment 199 by 409 to 102 and on Amendment 3 by 323 to 93, suggesting a pattern of opposition amendments falling to the government's large Commons majority.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring a formal post-legislative review of the public advocate's powers, giving victims and bereaved families a stronger independent voice after major incidents such as disasters or public authority failures.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, likely favouring the government's own approach (Government new clause 9) as a sufficient alternative, rather than imposing this additional reporting and review requirement.
§ 01Who voted how.516 voting Members · 133 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
0
294
66
Conservative and Unionist Party
Voted Aye
93
0
23
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
2
0
Your Party
0
2
0
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

Votes by party (CSV) · Premium
§ 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 aye · 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 no · 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