Public Office (Accountability) Bill Report Stage: Amendment 19
104Ayes
412Noes
Defeated · majority 308 · Government won134 did not vote
650 Members · Aye 104 · No 412 · DNV 134 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Amendment 19 to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill was defeated at Report Stage on 14 July 2026 by 412 votes to 104. The amendment, tabled by Conservative MPs, proposed a post-legislative assessment requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months of the Act passing, examining how the Act's provisions affect public confidence in public authorities and the role of a standing public advocate in responding to major incidents. The vote matters because it decided whether the legislation would include a built-in review mechanism. The amendment would have required the government to assess, among other things, whether the public advocate's powers should be extended to gather information from those affected by major incidents, and whether an independent panel could be established to collate evidence and oversee public authorities' responses. Defeating it means no such statutory review requirement will appear in the Bill as currently drafted. The division followed strict party lines. All 294 Labour MPs who voted and all 37 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the amendment, as did the Liberal Democrats (52), the SNP (6), the Greens (5), and Plaid Cymru (4). The Conservatives provided 93 of the 104 Ayes, joined by 5 Reform UK MPs, 4 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, and 2 Independents. No Labour or Liberal Democrat MP voted for the amendment. The result is consistent with other divisions on the same Bill on the same day, in which Conservative-led amendments were defeated by similar margins.
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.
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 whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
294
66
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
93
0
23
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
52
19
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
37
6
Independent
—
2
5
6
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
5
0
2
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
6
1
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
0
1
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
5
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped 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 · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Supports the Bill's aims but advocates for New Clause 1 (SIA review), Amendment 27 (capping penalty increases), and Amendments 25-26 (fixing thresholds at 200/799) to protect small venues and charities from regulatory overreach and uncertainty.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,908 words) →
Supports New Clause 2 requiring Secretary of State to develop and implement training for venue staff to provide clarity and practical support, particularly for smaller venues near thresholds.Liberal Democrat · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,318 words) →
Strongly backs the Bill as written; warns that Opposition amendments risk watering down protections and that Manchester businesses largely support current thresholds as proportionate.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (719 words) →
Argues the Bill is proportionate and contains light-touch requirements that serve as prompts; emphasises the burden of a terrorist attack far exceeds compliance costs.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,505 words) →
Supports New Clause 1 and Amendments 25-27; concerned about undue burden on volunteers, charities, and small theatres; urges SIA review and questions proportionality for micro-venues.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,745 words) →
Expresses deep concern about unintended consequences for churches and parish halls; warns volunteers may refuse responsibility if burden is too high, risking closure of vital community spaces.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,485 words) →
Supports the Bill constructively but seeks clarity and support for churches on training, funding, and how compliance will work; draws on Northern Ireland security experience.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,973 words) →
Former police officer; backs the Bill as a necessary step to foster security culture and shared responsibility across venues; dismisses concerns about vigilantism.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,135 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0