Lords Advance Public Office Accountability Amid Global Security Concerns
High-Level Summary
The House of Lords began with two introductions and an announcement tightening time limits for supplementary questions and ministerial replies. Oral Questions covered London housing, weight-loss medicines, organised crime and Russian incursions affecting Moldova, followed by a Private Notice Question on Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia. Committee stage began on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, with debates on the purpose clause, whistleblowing, the duty of candour, records, public bodies, contractors, the Independent Public Advocate and post-legislative scrutiny. The House also considered the Robert Hamill Inquiry Report before adjourning at 8.58 pm.
Detailed Summary
Introductions, Oral Question procedure and London housing
Baroness Sarpong and Lord Ross of Nevill Holt were introduced, took the oath and signed undertakings to abide by the Code of Conduct. Lord Kennedy of Southwark announced new guidance on Oral Questions: “the supplementary question of the noble Lord asking the Question should not exceed 45 seconds”. He also reminded Ministers that their replies should be equally brief.
Lord Bailey of Paddington asked whether the housing target in the Mayor of London’s Draft London Plan complied with the Government’s standard method. Baroness Blake of Leeds said the proposed figure was significantly below the standard-method figure and that the Government would respond to the consultation “in the coming days”. Subsequent questions covered delivery of homes with planning permission, the 10-year national housing plan, affordable-housing funding, viability, new towns, school provision and small builders. The Minister said the long-term housing strategy had not been abandoned, cited a £39 billion social and affordable housing pot including more than £11 billion for London, and described the 1.5 million-home target as ambitious. No decision was taken in the Question period.
Weight-loss medicines: safety and access
Baroness Nargund asked about the increased use of medicines such as Wegovy and Ozempic, particularly safety and health equity. Baroness Merron said weight-loss medicines were considered through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) processes, and that prescription-only medicines should be used after clinical assessment with monitoring and behavioural support. Members raised private online prescribing, unequal access, longer-term side-effects, counterfeit medicines and possible economic benefits.
The Minister said the Government had conducted a call for evidence on private and online prescribing and were considering the responses. She said funding was available for around 220,000 people in greatest clinical need to receive Mounjaro through the NHS by the end of 2027-28. She also reported that the MHRA’s criminal enforcement unit and its partners had seized more than 20 million doses of illegally traded medicines and disrupted about 200,000 links to illegal online sales. In response to Lord Winston, she undertook to investigate possible epigenetic effects and write to him: “I will be very glad to find out and write to my noble friend”.
National Crime Agency: people smuggling and drug dealing
Lord Davies of Gower asked about the effectiveness of the National Crime Agency (NCA) in disrupting people-smuggling gangs and associated drug dealing. Lord Collins of Highbury said there was limited overlap between the two forms of organised crime, although some gangs engaged in both; NCA arrests linked to people smuggling had risen by more than 55% in the previous financial year, and the NCA had supported the international seizure of 189 tonnes of class A drugs.
Members asked about the exploitation of migrants to sell drugs, encrypted platforms, police technical expertise, possible routes around Cornwall and Devon, international co-operation, child exploitation and alleged corruption among immigration advisers. The Minister referred to Border Security Command and co-operation with France, including the deployment of more than 1,050 officers in northern France. He said the response required intelligence and international co-operation, rather than simply more local policing resources. He undertook to write about the origins of large inflatables seized by the NCA because he did not have that information, and said work was taking place across Whitehall on child exploitation.
Moldovan sovereignty and Russian incursions
Baroness Rawlings asked about Russian incursions affecting Moldova. Lord Wood of Anfield said the Government were concerned about the increased number of Russian drones entering Moldovan airspace and reaffirmed support for Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Members discussed Russian disinformation, drone and sabotage threats, Transnistria, energy independence, democratic reform and counter-drone assistance.
The Minister said a 2024 UK-Moldova defence and security partnership supported work on cyber threats, illicit finance, information manipulation and defence, and that more than £5 million had been provided bilaterally for security and defence assistance in the previous year. He said the UK would respond to Moldova’s requests for further support, including counter-drone assistance, but gave no timetable. He also said that increased pressure through sanctions and collective action was the Government’s preferred approach to Russia.
Saudi Arabia: Houthi attacks
In a Private Notice Question, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon asked about Houthi attacks on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, their implications for regional stability and global energy security, and UK support for Saudi Arabia. Lord Wood of Anfield condemned the attacks on airports in Riyadh and Dammam, saying that they threatened regional stability and critical transport and energy infrastructure: “The UK stands in solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”.
Questions covered the supply of arms from Iran, maritime security, UK assistance to Yemen, possible Royal Navy deployments, sanctions and the Mecca agreement. The Minister said UN interdiction measures were in place, that more than £100 million had been provided in humanitarian support for victims of the conflict in Yemen during the year, and that an RAF Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft had been provided at Saudi Arabia’s request. He said the level of support was “constantly being reviewed”, declined to comment on particular deployments, and undertook to provide Lord Ahmad with a fuller answer on the status of the Mecca agreement.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill: purpose clause and whistleblowing
Committee consideration of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill began after Welsh legislative consent had been granted and Northern Irish and Scottish consent had been sought. Lord Young of Acton proposed limiting the effect of Clause 1’s reference to acting in the public interest, arguing that it should not create a freestanding duty or allow officials to disregard lawful ministerial instructions. Lord Keen of Elie supported clarification and said: “advisers advise and Ministers decide”.
Lord Lemos said that Clause 1 was a purpose clause and had no independent legal effect: “The legal rights, duties and obligations created by the Bill are found in its operative provisions, not in Clause 1 itself”. He declined to give an immediate assurance about the Civil Service Code without further advice, but undertook to check the point. Amendment 1 was withdrawn and Clause 1 was agreed.
Baroness Kramer then argued that the existing whistleblowing framework did not adequately protect people from retaliation or ensure that credible disclosures were investigated. She proposed protections against detriment, investigation duties and an independent office of the whistleblower. Other Members supported stronger protections, while Lord Wolfson of Tredegar questioned whether a new office and multiple processes were necessary and asked about cost and effects on prompt resolution. Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said a government consultation was considering requirements for employers to assess disclosures and whether an independent whistleblowing body should be established. She said it would be premature to legislate further before the evidence had been considered. Amendment 2 was withdrawn, with further discussions before Report indicated.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill: relevance, records, scope and enforcement
Members debated the meaning of “may be relevant”, the trigger for the duty of candour, recklessness, digital records, large inquiries, self-incrimination, parliamentary coverage, higher education and command responsibility. Lord Wolfson of Tredegar argued that the distinction between acts that “are or may be relevant” and information that “is relevant” could create uncertainty and over-reporting, and sought clarification on when the duty began and on recklessness. Lord Lemos said the broader wording was intended to apply before an inquiry had identified precisely what information it required, and that recklessness was defined by case law. Amendment 3 was withdrawn and Amendment 4 was not moved.
Baroness Brinton and Lord Wills sought clearer duties to retain and disclose formal records, including digital messages, and to identify material not supplied to an inquiry. The Minister said the existing provisions applied regardless of the format or communication channel, while a review of non-corporate communication channels was under way. Baroness Brinton and the Minister agreed to discuss the distinction between information and formal records further; Amendment 5 was withdrawn.
The Minister said higher education providers were covered by the duty of candour when exercising public functions, while the ongoing ethical-code requirement did not extend to universities and relevant regulation remained a matter for the Office for Students. He said guidance on the interaction with other legal duties would be published before commencement, though he could not promise it by Report. On command responsibility, he said the Bill already required the head of a public authority to take all reasonable steps and allowed prosecution for personal breaches or consent and connivance. Amendment 8 was withdrawn. Government Amendments 15 and 16 were agreed; Schedule 1 as amended and Clause 3 were also agreed.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill: contractors and subcontractors
Baroness Brinton proposed extending the duty of candour through chains of subcontracting, arguing that public services could involve several contractual layers and that a direct-contract test might exclude relevant workers. Lord Keen of Elie asked about the costs and procurement implications for existing and prospective contractors.
Lord Lemos said it would not be proportionate to apply all the Bill’s provisions to anyone supplying services, which could include cleaners, caterers and stationery suppliers. He said main contractors were covered where their activities were connected with the incident, had a significant impact on members of the public and were performed as a service provider to a public authority. He said the Government were considering whether relevant subcontractors should also be covered, and later stated that subcontractors would be covered where they met the Employment Rights Act 1996 definition of a worker. He undertook to write on procurement and cost issues. Amendment 21 was withdrawn; Amendments 22 and 23 were not moved and Clause 4 was agreed.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Independent Public Advocate and post-legislative scrutiny
Members argued that the Independent Public Advocate (IPA) should be expressly included in the duty of candour framework and adequately resourced to support victims and bereaved families after major incidents. Baroness Sanderson of Welton and Lord Wills said the IPA could provide early representation and help families seek focused fact-finding before a lengthy public inquiry. Members also referred to the IPA’s part-time structure, three-person office and annual budget of just over £500,000.
Lord Lemos said the IPA had an important victim-support and representation role, but that the Government did not want to duplicate existing investigative mechanisms. He undertook to continue discussions before Report, said business cases for additional support were being considered, and said the role would be reviewed in 2027. Amendment 9 was withdrawn.
The Committee also considered post-legislative scrutiny, annual independent reporting and police record-keeping. The Government agreed that the legislation’s effectiveness should be assessed, but said that a full assessment of new measures would require more than one year. The Minister was sympathetic to considering a longer review period and other proposals before Report. Lord Faulkner of Worcester’s amendment on placing police records under the supervision of the Keeper of Public Records was withdrawn after the Minister agreed to circulate relevant correspondence and continue discussions. The House resumed after Amendments 29 and 30 were not moved.
Robert Hamill Inquiry Report
The House considered a Statement made in the House of Commons on publication of the Robert Hamill Inquiry Report. The Statement recorded that Robert Hamill was murdered in Portadown in 1997 and that the inquiry identified failures in the subsequent Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation, including failures to debrief officers and provide relevant information. It also recorded that the inquiry found that the officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of a wrongful act or omission relating to Hamill’s death and did not condone or collude with the attackers. Former officer Robert Atkinson was convicted in 2024 for conduct that obstructed the murder investigation.
Members expressed sympathy for the family, concern about the 15-year delay between completion and publication, and interest in the status of the still-open murder investigation. Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said that any continuing murder inquiry remained the responsibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland unless referred to the legacy commission. She said the Government were strengthening the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery as the legacy commission and were considering how the duty of candour would apply alongside the distinct disclosure regime in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The report was laid in the Libraries of both Houses and published online. The House adjourned at 8.58 pm.