Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Exclusion

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for providing the opportunity for noble Lords to raise a matter of deep and real public interest. The exclusion of Members of this House and the House of Commons from Clause 11 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill is a topic which touches on constitutional issues and those which relate to public trust. The Bill engages long-standing concerns about transparency in public life. It will impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness, and to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of their authority. It creates offences for those who, in that capacity—and I emphasise the phrase “in that capacity”—mislead the public and, in relation to the misconduct of persons, who hold public office.

The Hillsborough families’ campaign for accountability has been one of the most powerful calls for reform in recent decades; it is right that we act on their concerns. Here, I declare an interest: I acted in some civil claims on behalf of South Yorkshire Police and, at a later date, for victims who sued their solicitors who had settled their original claims for too little. I have also represented a health authority in a public inquiry against a dishonest consultant, so I know and have practical experience of what dishonesty and cover-ups can mean for the victims.

The new offences will apply when a public authority or official acting with intention or reckless disregard commits improper acts that mislead in respect of matters of significant public concern. But MPs and Peers do not, by virtue of that status alone, act as officials—we must remember that. By Schedule 2 to the Bill, “public authority” means a government department, a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland devolved authority. So individual officeholders and their departments, when acting, are within scope. It is only when acting personally, in a purely parliamentary capacity, that an MP or a Peer will be immune.

This debate raises the interesting and difficult question: when, if ever, should MPs and Peers be guilty of the criminal offences contained in the Bill? Neither House of Parliament will for that purpose be a public authority. This reflects long-standing constitutional conventions of Parliament’s self-regulation and independence. Parliamentary privilege and constitutional autonomy are vital; they must not be compromised. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 remains a cornerstone of our constitutional settlement. It provides that freedom of speech and debate in Parliament

“ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.

Article 9 safeguards the core functions of this House and the other place in debating and scrutinising the Government without fear of legal sanction. Those who abuse parliamentary privilege are susceptible to punishment and expulsion by Parliament.

The problems with the Hillsborough and infected blood scandals stem from cover-ups by those acting in official positions, whether as Ministers or officials. I am not suggesting anyone in particular here, but they were in positions of authority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, explained some of the hazards that might arise from going beyond the Bill and the significance of the Representation of the People Act, for example. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton explained other risks. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly highlighted the danger of the mere threat of proceedings to what people may then be prepared to say in either House of Parliament.

Article 9 rightly protects proceedings in Parliament. It does not protect conduct by individuals outside those parameters, those formal proceedings, nor does it provide immunity from the criminal law for conduct outside parliamentary debate—see the expenses scandal, where at least one MP attempted to run the argument but failed in the courts. The scope of parliamentary privilege is carefully constrained, and rightly so.

Parliament should be very cautious lest any words spoken on the Floors of either House, or in its committees, are put at risk of being caught by criminal offences or civil actions. The threat of prosecution would have a chilling effect on robust debate, which is the essence of parliamentary democracy. An authoritarian Government with majorities in both Houses, any mischief-maker in either House or any outsider might raise specious allegations for bad motives, or just out of ignorance. The fact that the Member in question might ultimately be acquitted of wrongdoing, whether in the criminal or civil courts, will not have prevented exposure to frightening pressures. Our legislators must not be so exposed. The Bill of Rights is a bulwark. History is on its side.

As we have heard, some Members in the other place have suggested that extending the offence to MPs and Peers might improve public trust and perception, and amendments have been tabled from some MPs to bring Members of Parliament within the scope of the offence. That would be a grave error. MPs and Peers acting as such do not make decisions on behalf of the state. They are not Ministers or officials. Their misconduct, if and when it occurs, will be addressed by Parliament—we have had examples in the recent past. Parliament does and will police its Members; no one else should when it acts within the bounds which I have set out.

We on these Benches believe that creating a criminal offence would be wrong, but we also recognise that the exclusion of Parliament from the offence risks sending the wrong message if it is not properly explained to the public. It is not an easy topic to explain in plain and simple terms to a wider public. Accountability and integrity in public life must be strengthened and supported, and public trust in our institutions is, frankly, fragile at present. But the way to hell is paved with good intentions, so beware: the remedy will be worse than the disease.

Given these considerations, I ask the Minister the following questions. What consideration have the Government given to alternative models to ensure meaningful accountability without infringing on this privilege? Do the Government believe that the current system of parliamentary sanctions alone is sufficient and effective? What further parliamentary sanctions might be of value? What steps will the Government take during the currency of the Bill to explain these important principles of our constitution?