Public Office (Accountability) Bill

John Slinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill and commend Ministers for the work that has been done on it. In particular, I pay tribute to Merseyside colleagues, who have done so much to get us to where we are today.

This Bill is about restoring people’s trust in the people who serve them, whether that is in Westminster, Liverpool or Bolton—trust that the truth will be told when things go wrong; trust that when things do go wrong, those responsible will be held to account; and trust that Government at every level will work for them, not against them. When I speak to people in Bolton West, the impression is often the same: they are tired of people in public office covering up their failures instead of being held accountable for them.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central reasons for public disillusionment and outrage is that there are no successful prosecutions, or very few, in cases of egregious state failure? Does he agree that unless wrongdoers pay a price and are seen to pay a price, this impunity may persist, and that the duty of candour and the two new statutory offences will help overcome this malaise?

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend speaks to the two new offences—clauses 5 and 11. It is vital not only that the Bill is passed, but that the authorities have the powers they need to ensure that the contents of the Bill are enforced.

When I speak to people, they want honesty and fairness, and for those in power to live by the same rules as everyone else. That is why this Bill matters. Behind it lie some of the darkest chapters in our recent history, which we have already heard about in the Chamber today: Grenfell, Hillsborough, the Horizon scandal, infected blood—the list is far too long. Each one of those cases represents lives ruined by not just a single mistake, but a culture of denial by institutions that closed ranks instead of coming clean.

Given the time constraints, let me turn to the contents of the Bill. It will create a landmark duty of candour on public officials, alongside a new and important offence of statutory misconduct in public office. Both will be vital measures in ensuring that the scandals of years past can never be repeated. Fundamental to the Bill is the new requirement for public authorities to have a code of ethics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned before me, which will start to rebuild the moral foundation of public service that too many people believe has been lost.

I put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has generously engaged with me on a number of points related to the Bill. I hope the Government will consider three small, novel but important changes I wish to propose as the Bill goes to Committee. First, the Bill uses two different definitions of what counts as a public authority. There may be a good reason for that, which the Minister can speak to in her wind-up, but for the duty of candour and misconduct in public office offences, elected representatives, such as local councillors, mayors and Ministers, are included as per part 2 of schedule 2, but when it comes to the requirement to have a code of ethics, it excludes them as per part 3 of schedule 2. That feels inconsistent, and I worry that it risks diluting the message that we are trying to send, which is that everyone, no matter their position, is held to the same standards. My constituents expect everyone in public life, from the Cabinet table to the council chamber, to live by the same principles of honesty and decency.

Secondly, may I gently suggest that we look again at putting the ministerial code and the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards on a statutory footing? This simple measure was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2021 report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”.

That is a simple way of ensuring that the rules that govern Ministers today cannot be swept away by less scrupulous Governments tomorrow.

Thirdly, on the offence of misconduct in public office, will the Minister clarify why the Government have elected to set the bar so high? Part 3 is worded to allude to

“the nature and degree of any benefit obtained by the person (whether for themselves or another person) as a result of the act “.

Seeking to be corrupt is not better than successfully being corrupt, so I hope that the Minister will look afresh at the relevant clause. Indeed, the Law Commission has called for a definition along the lines of the intention to benefit. As I recall from more than a decade tackling corruption, section 6 of the Bribery Act 2010 uses the phrasing

“intend to obtain or retain…business, or…an advantage in the conduct of business.”

Aligning those definitions would make it easier for prosecutors to hold bad actors to account.

None the less, the Bill is a huge step forward in the Government’s mission to return politics to service. I am proud to support it this evening, and I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to make it as strong, fair and future-proof as it can be.

China Spying Case

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Conservative Members are being nothing short of opportunistic and are playing political games with our national security. It is, of course, their job and their right to oppose what the Government are doing, but on issues of national security I would have thought there could be more appreciation of the national interest and the nuances involved.

In my speech I am going to do some myth-busting—quite a useful thing to do in this age of misinformation, disinformation and hyperbolic chest-thumping. What we are seeing is a somewhat phoney, but very definitely opportunistic, brand of national security patriotism. Frankly, if ever over-inflated balloons of confected outrage needed to be burst, it is today. So, I will bust two myths and state two truisms.

Myth No. 1: a narrative that the Tories try to push is that Labour prioritised a strategic relationship with communist China. However, the Government fully recognise that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks to foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions. The true fault lies with the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the then Foreign Secretary, said in April 2023 that summing up China in one word as a “threat” was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”.

The Leader of the Opposition, while serving in the Cabinet, also said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

Now that this trial has collapsed, they are accusing this Government of interfering, when it was their carefully worded Government policy that did not define China as an “enemy”—and there is nothing that present Ministers can do to change that.

[Gregory Stafford]

I would urge the hon. Gentleman not to misquote the two right hon. Members that he has just quoted. Even if the quotes that he gave were whole and full—which they are not—the DPP has categorically said that it was not about policy; it was about whether China was an actual threat at the time. Is the DPP right, or does the hon. Gentleman have some other information?

[John Slinger]

I do not have any other information on that point, but I do believe that Conservative Members ought to look in the mirror and acknowledge the decisions taken by the previous Government. Let me turn to myth No.2—

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

On that point, it is really important to clarify why such tight definitions were important in the first place. That is because the case was brought under a 1911 Act of Parliament, not a modern, up-to-date Act of Parliament. Is that not why we are in this situation?

[John Slinger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is absolutely, deeply regrettable that the Conservative party, when in government, did not reform legislation sufficiently well.

Myth No. 2, another myth that the Tories will continue to spread, is that the Labour Government interfered with the delivering of evidence. The shadow Home Secretary has made the accusation that

“the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot-free.”

This accusation simply has no real substance, as the Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour Ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for this case.

I shall move on to what I believe all Members across this House know to be true—truism No. 1. It is dangerous to undermine public confidence in the Government on matters of national security for party political advantage. Truism No. 2 is the more important one. It is perfectly possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time: one is that China is clearly a strategic rival to the UK in certain areas, and another is that it is a vital partner, whether on the Security Council, in tackling global challenges or, of course, for trade and investment.

I will conclude, taking the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that the Conservatives really do need to look in the mirror on this issue. This Government are acting with integrity.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

John Slinger Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come to the amendments very shortly.

Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. A number of European countries have constitutional monarchies that have a hereditary principle, but none of them has hereditary Members in their Parliaments. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique, and of the principle of mandatory retirement at a certain age—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned it. Of course, that principle also exists in the judiciary, and I do not see any objection there from a human rights perspective.

UCL’s constitution unit found that a clear majority of the public—60%—want hereditary peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself: not a single female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years, over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the south-east, and by-elections are so farcical that they verge on satire. By-elections are in scope of Lords amendment 1, which I will come to shortly.

My electorate in Bolton West is about 76,000 electors. In July last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP in order to give them a voice in this Chamber. But in 2018 one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes—fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend was giving his eloquent and excellent speech, I was reminded of a comedy series called “Blackadder”, in which such bizarre electoral practices happened on our television screens. It is a shame that they seem to be happening even today.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue.

In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he

“races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”.

The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny.

Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today.

Government Resilience Action Plan

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I welcome that question. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list of what is on the risk register, it is a public document, so he can look at that. I referred several times in my statement to energy security. To get the energy security that we need, we will have to invest in a lot of new kit and equipment around the country. It is really important that we are allowed to build that without people objecting to it at every turn.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have called for a responsibility revolution in which all businesses, organisations and individuals play their part in the national interest. I have seen that in my constituency on a visit to the National Gas station, which is a part of the critical infrastructure, and when talking to the Wolston and Brandon flood action group. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to provide better information to the public so that they can play their part in making our country more resilient?

G7 and NATO Summits

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Beat them. This is not just the usual politics; it is a serious question of national security. The at-sea nuclear deterrent is housed in Scotland, and just a few months ago I went and saw one of the subs coming back in. It was a very humbling experience, quite frankly, and I got an even deeper sense of what they do for our country. It should be supported in its own right and as an essential deterrent. That matter is among the reasons that we need a change of Government in Scotland.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that international co-operation and the ability to forge relationships of trust and human empathy are signs of strength, not weakness. Our country is stronger for his leadership and pursuit of peace globally through diplomatic means.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we can deter war and defend our allies such as Ukraine only if outward-looking diplomacy is backed up by ever stronger armed forces and an ever stronger economy; that those matters ought to unify all in the House; and that it is very unfortunate that we have seen petty, party political games from the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. All I can say is that, in fairness, I see on the faces of some Conservative Members disquiet at the approach that the Leader of the Opposition took. That is not surprising.

UK-EU Summit

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We need to take common-sense steps, in our national interest, on the economy, trade and business, and to give young people the opportunities that they deserve.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Our opponents talk of “surrender” and believe that they have a monopoly on concepts such as patriotism, but in order to trade we need to co-operate. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operating with our nearest neighbours and with the United States and India is not weak and not surrender? It is strong; it is pro-business; it is pro-worker; it is in the national interest; and it is in the interests of my constituents in Rugby, businesses, farmers, holidaymakers and young people.

[The Prime Minister]

What is astonishing is that the Conservatives do not want to co-operate with the EU, India or the US. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition’s approach to diplomacy is to accuse the Indian Government of “fake news”. That is not a good basis for a relationship through which to negotiate a better outcome.

Trade Negotiations

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

It is for the Indian Government to account for this trade deal in the terms that they so choose. We will follow the established constitutional process of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 whereby not only are we sharing a statement with the House at the earliest opportunity, but the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of every aspect of this agreement.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As somebody who represents a constituency with a proud community of people of Indian heritage, with world-beating firms, a skilled workforce, and a catapult centre at the Manufacturing Technology Centre, I would like to ask the Minister to expand on how this deal will help deliver growth, economic development and innovation right across the country, and opportunities for businesses, small medium and large?

[Mr Alexander]

We have spoken today of the importance of the Indian market, but it is also right to recognise that the Indian market presently sits behind some of the world’s highest barriers to trade, notwithstanding the fact that it was the UK’s 12th largest trading partner. The fact that we are tearing down so many of those tariff levels as part of this agreement will be a very practical and pragmatic offering for the kind of excellence in manufacturing that he has in his constituency and that is represented across our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Under the Tories, inflation was 11%, with a £22 billion black hole and a mini-Budget that made us the laughing stock of the world, and they want to give us lectures on the economy? No, thank you very much.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q4. With one in eight young people across the country not in education, employment or training, people in Rugby are worried about a wasted generation. Too many people with disabilities and health conditions are not getting the help they need to get into work, so will the Prime Minister set out how this Government will give everyone who is able to work the support they need, provide compassion to those who cannot work, and fix the broken welfare system left behind by—you guessed it—the Conservatives?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I come from a family that dealt with disability through my mother and brother over many years, so I understand the concerns he has raised. We inherited a system that is broken. It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and will reform it. We will have clear principles: we will protect those who need protecting, and we will also support those who can work back to work. Labour is the party of work, and we are also the party of equality and fairness.

Ukraine

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are doing what we can. It is not just something within the UK, frankly; it came up yesterday in the discussions. If there is any possibility of going further, and I do not know whether there is, it is going to have to be done with other countries at the same time. I do not want to get ahead of myself because it may simply be too complicated and too risky, but certainly there is an appetite now to look more closely at the possibilities of looking at these assets.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

At the weekend, a Ukrainian constituent said to me:

“As the bombs fell on my city last night, one thing remains unchanged: no one here wants a peace built on surrender or at the cost of dignity. So to those who stand with us—not just in words, but in truth—thank you.”

Does the Prime Minister agree that strong diplomacy, such as his, that encourages friends to defend our values, Ukraine and the international rules-based system is in the permanent interests of the UK, Europe, the United States and the wider world, and that it honours our Ukrainian friends, who have sacrificed so much?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. Those are the principles and values that must be uppermost in our mind as we take our decisions.

Defence and Security

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments. At a moment like this, it is important that I am able to carry the House with me as we undertake the next stage of these discussions about the security and defence of Europe. It is a very important generational moment, and this House and this country have always come together and stood up at moments like this. I know he has long been a supporter of increased defence spending and capability, and of the notion that there must be a warfighting capability. He is right about that, which is why we have made the decision we have today.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his strong leadership. Does he agree that as we rightly reassert the concept of taking responsibility—of responsibility being taken by our own military, people and economy, and by our friends on the continent of Europe—we must also reassert the responsibility of all countries to defend the international rules-based system, which has at its core the concept that bullies must not get away with invading their neighbours? If they do, not only will we dishonour the bravery and sacrifice of our Ukrainian friends, but our collective security will be weakened.

[The Prime Minister]

Two of those rules-based systems are fundamental: the UN charter and the NATO framework and all the articles in it. Those are hugely important rules-based frameworks that we must absolutely adhere to. I wrote many times about the UN Security Council as a lawyer. In my first appearance at the Security Council, I was sitting at the table with a country that was in clear violation of the charter, and I did not feel at all comfortable.