Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Debate between John Slinger and Phil Brickell

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.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between John Slinger and Phil Brickell

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between John Slinger and Phil Brickell

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.