Parliament and privilege
MPs and peers can't be prosecuted for what they say in Parliament.
Correct, and this petition does not change that. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights protects everything said and done in proceedings in Parliament, and it always will. We are asking only that lawmakers be covered for what they say and do outside Parliament: on television and radio, in leaflets, at public events and online.
"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament."Bill of Rights 1689, Article 9
The Government agrees that the Bill could never reach proceedings in Parliament:
"The Bill would need to make express provisions to set aside this constitutional principle, which it does not."Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, for the Government, House of Lords, 21 October 2026
So the fear that this could criminalise ordinary parliamentary business cannot be right. Even peers opposed to including lawmakers accept that Article 9 does not protect conduct by individuals outside those parameters
(Lord Sandhurst, 26 February 2026).
Parliament regulates its own members. It has its own ways of dealing with MPs who mislead.
The Government's main argument: It is a long-standing constitutional convention that Parliament regulates its own affairs.
Lord Lemos, for the Government, House of Lords, 12 October 2026.
Parliament's procedures deal with misleading the House, inside Parliament. They do nothing about a lie told to the public on a television sofa, in a leaflet or on social media, which is all this petition is about.
And the Bill itself already puts MPs and peers before the criminal courts. Its new misconduct offences list them as holders of public office, as the Government has confirmed. It leaves them out only of the offence of misleading the public.
"A Member of either House of Parliament."Schedule 4, paragraph 6(1): holders of public office for the misconduct offences
"Both those two very broad offences do apply to MPs and Peers, as well as to a number of other public office holders, including judges."Baroness Levitt, Justice Minister, House of Lords, 26 February 2026
"public officeholder is defined in the list in Schedule 4 to the Bill and includes civil servants, MPs and Ministers, among others."Lord Lemos, for the Government, House of Lords, 19 October 2026
Ministers are already covered, including the Prime Minister. Aren't they MPs too?
Ministers are covered only while they act as ministers. The Prime Minister can be prosecuted for lying as Prime Minister, but not when speaking as an MP, a party leader or a campaigner. Backbench MPs, the opposition and peers are not covered at all, though every law needs their votes.
"But an individual is a public official only to the extent of their functions as such an official."Schedule 2, paragraph 3(2)
Is this even true? Are lawmakers really left out?
Yes. The Bill lists Parliament and every devolved legislature as "excluded bodies", so their members are not public officials for the offence of misleading the public.
"The following are excluded bodies— (a) a court; (b) either House of Parliament; (c) the Scottish Parliament; (d) Senedd Cymru; (e) the Northern Ireland Assembly"Schedule 2, paragraph 2(4)
Backbenchers and peers don't take decisions for the state or see Government information.
The Government's reason for leaving them out: individual MPs and Peers do not directly take decisions on behalf of the state, nor do they have access to the kind of government information that would be available to Ministers.
Baroness Levitt, Justice Minister, House of Lords, 26 February 2026.
Neither do nurses or police constables, and the Bill covers them. The offence is about deceiving the public, not about who takes decisions. Nobody needs Government information to tell the public a lie. They need a platform and the public's trust, and lawmakers have both. They also vote on every law and every budget.
"A public authority or public official commits an offence if, in their capacity as such an authority or official— (a) they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act will do so"Clause 12(1)
Free speech and politics
Who decides what counts as a lie?
Not political opponents and not the Government. The independent Director of Public Prosecutions must agree to any prosecution, and a court decides on the evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The test is strict: the person must have intended to mislead the public or been reckless about it, and every part of this must be proved.
"(a) involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated (whether by means of falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise) in respect of matters of significant concern to the public, (b) caused, or contributed to causing, harm to one or more other persons, or had the potential to do so, and (c) departed significantly from what is to be expected in the proper exercise of the person's functions"Clause 12(3)
It would criminalise opinions, broken promises and honest mistakes.
It would not. An honest opinion, a forecast that turns out wrong or a promise later broken is not dishonest. The offence needs dishonesty, and an intention to mislead or recklessness about it. A broken promise could only come close if the person never meant to keep it, and that would have to be proved.
"they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act will do so"Clause 12(1)(a)
It's the wrong way to regulate political speech.
The Government's words: Of course, the Government agree that misleading the public in any capacity is not acceptable, and there should be consequences for parliamentarians who do so, but this new offence is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating political speech.
Baroness Levitt, Justice Minister, House of Lords, 26 February 2026.
The Government accepts there should be consequences for parliamentarians who mislead the public, but has not said what they would be. This offence does not regulate debate or opinion. It reaches only dishonesty that is significant or repeated, about matters of significant concern to the public, that causes or risks harm. The Bill already applies exactly this test to Government ministers, whose words are as political as anyone's.
"a reasonable person would consider it to be seriously improper, taking account of all the circumstances of the case"Clause 12(2)(b)
The offence is meant for state cover-ups like Hillsborough, not for politics.
The Government: the offence is for the grave examples of state cover-up for which it was intended.
Lord Lemos, House of Lords, 19 October 2026.
The Bill does not say that anywhere. Clause 12 covers any public official who intentionally or recklessly misleads the public in a seriously improper way, with no limit to disasters or cover-ups. It already covers Government ministers and the Prime Minister, whose work is as political as it gets. If the offence were only for cover-ups, there would be no reason to cover them either.
"A public authority or public official commits an offence if, in their capacity as such an authority or official— (a) they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act will do so"Clause 12(1)
The offence is too vague to apply to politicians.
Raised by Lord Faulks: The clause is extremely vague, which gives rise to rule-of-law objections.
House of Lords, 19 October 2026.
That is an argument about the wording of the offence, not about who it covers. If the test is clear enough for nurses, police officers, civil servants and ministers, it is clear enough for lawmakers. If it is not, it should be improved for everyone.
"(c) departed significantly from what is to be expected in the proper exercise of the person's functions as a public authority or public official."Clause 12(3)(c)
It would be used to silence people. Whoever controls "the truth" controls politics.
It applies only to people in public office, never to the public, and the Bill expressly protects journalism. It would cover every lawmaker equally, regardless of which party is in power. And no one can bring a case on their own: every prosecution needs the consent of the independent Director of Public Prosecutions.
"Nothing in this section applies to an act done for the purposes of journalism by— (a) a recognised news publisher"Clause 12(4)
It would chill debate and put good people off standing for office.
Raised by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: the threat of prosecution, could have a chilling effect on parliamentarians and parliamentary debate.
House of Lords, 26 February 2026.
It chills only deliberate or reckless deception. Honest people, including people who get things wrong, have nothing to fear. The Bill applies the same rule to nurses, police officers, civil servants and ministers, and the Government's own answer to this worry is that the high threshold protects them. It would protect lawmakers in exactly the same way.
"The chilling effect will be, to some extent, protected by the thresholds for prosecution."Lord Lemos, for the Government, House of Lords, 19 October 2026
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section— … (b) to show that they otherwise had a reasonable excuse for their act."Clause 12(6)(b)
How it would work
Opponents would bring politically motivated prosecutions.
Raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: there is a logic to confining the provision to the Executive and not opening the door to lengthy and politically inspired prosecutions.
House of Lords, 26 February 2026.
They could not do it alone. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland every prosecution, including a private one, needs the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Government itself says that safeguard is there for exactly this reason. If a defendant raises a reasonable excuse, the prosecution has to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
"prosecutions cannot be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, specifically to avoid vexatious private prosecutions."Baroness Levitt, Justice Minister, House of Lords, 26 February 2026
"Proceedings for an offence under section 5 or 12 may be brought— (a) in England and Wales, only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; (b) in Northern Ireland, only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland."Schedule 3, paragraph 2
Voters, not courts, should judge politicians. That's what elections are for.
Raised by Lord Young of Acton: there is already an adequate mechanism for punishing them—the ballot box.
House of Lords, 26 February 2026. The Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds wrote to the Speaker in January 2026: Ultimately, elected members are accountable to the public.
Ministers face the ballot box too, and the Bill still covers them. An election cannot weigh evidence or reach a verdict on whether someone lied, and a lie told during a campaign has done its damage by polling day. Peers never face an election at all.
Judges shouldn't decide political arguments or send elected representatives to prison.
Courts would not judge policies, only whether someone dishonestly misled the public, as they judge dishonesty in fraud cases every day. MPs are already subject to the criminal law. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that parliamentary privilege did not stop MPs being prosecuted over false expenses claims (R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52). This Bill's own misconduct offence already applies to them.
"A person who holds public office commits an offence if— (a) they use their office to obtain a benefit (whether for themselves or another person) or to cause another person to suffer a detriment, and (b) they know, or ought to know, that doing so is a seriously improper act."Clause 13(1), which applies to MPs and peers through Schedule 4, paragraph 6(1)
Spies and undercover police have to lie.
The Bill already deals with this, for everyone it covers. There is a defence where deception was necessary for the work of the intelligence services or the armed forces on active service, and a general defence of reasonable excuse. The offence is about deceiving the British public in a seriously improper way, not about operations against criminals or hostile states.
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section— (a) to prove that the act constituting the offence was necessary for the proper exercise of any function of— (i) an intelligence service, or (ii) the armed forces when engaged on active service"Clause 12(6)(a)
There'd be nobody left in Parliament.
The bar is deliberately high, so prosecutions would be rare. The point is the standard it sets. Once lying to the public can lead to a criminal record, lawmakers check their claims before they make them, as ministers, police officers and nurses will have to.
"(c) departed significantly from what is to be expected in the proper exercise of the person's functions"Clause 12(3)(c)
It won't change anything. They'll keep lying and it will never be used.
The Hillsborough Law is a Government Bill, so it will become law. A clear criminal offence changes behaviour even when it is rarely used: it is why people in public office will take advice and check what they say. Where the authorities will not act, ExecProsec will seek to bring the cases ourselves, with the consent the Bill requires.
"The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions— (a) with candour, transparency and frankness, and (b) in the public interest."Clause 1(1)
Isn't it covered already?
There are already laws against lying at elections.
Only about a candidate's personal character or conduct. That law protects candidates from each other, not voters. Lies about policies, facts or figures, and lies told between elections, are not covered.
"makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice"Representation of the People Act 1983, section 106(1)
MPs can already be prosecuted for misconduct in public office.
This Bill abolishes that offence. Its replacement is about using an office to obtain a benefit or to harm someone, not about misleading the public. When it was tried against a politician for misleading the public, in 2019, the High Court stopped the case.
"The offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of England and Wales is abolished."Clause 17(1)
Codes of conduct and the Nolan principles already require honesty.
They are not law. They create no offence and no remedy for the public, and the Ministerial Code is enforced by the Prime Minister of the day. The Bill exists because codes like these were not enough for anyone else in public life.
Wales already does this.
Wales has committed to a law on deception by its own politicians, but it is not working law yet. The Hillsborough Law would cover the whole of the UK, Wales included, and it already lists members of the Senedd as holders of public office for its misconduct offences.
"A member of Senedd Cymru."Schedule 4, paragraph 8(1)
About this campaign
They'll never vote to include themselves.
Lawmakers from every side have already called for it. In the Commons, Luke Myer MP said it ought to apply to all of us as politicians
and that more than 30 MPs from both sides backed his amendments to include all MPs (14 July 2026). In the Lords:
"We cannot credibly legislate for honesty in public life while exempting ourselves."Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour), 26 February 2026
"I do not understand why politicians like us should be held to a lower standard of honesty than other public officials."Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green), 12 October 2026
"if you deliberately mislead then you should face the same consequences as everybody else."Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat), 12 October 2026
Peers vote on including lawmakers separately from the rest of the Bill, and the vote is decided by whoever turns up on the day. Public pressure changes votes, and that is what this petition is for.
Including MPs could put the whole Hillsborough Law at risk.
It would not. The vote on including lawmakers is a separate vote on an amendment. If it fails, the rest of the Bill carries on unchanged.
This is about one party.
It would apply to every lawmaker regardless of which party is in power: Labour, Conservative, Reform, Liberal Democrat, Green, the nationalist parties, independents and peers.
Can it be backdated to cover past lies?
No. A new criminal offence cannot apply to things done before it became law. Once it is law, it would apply to everyone it covers from then on.
Peers aren't even elected. Why does it matter?
Whatever the route in, every peer votes on our laws and should be under this one. Peers are already listed as holders of public office for the Bill's misconduct offences.
"A Member of either House of Parliament."Schedule 4, paragraph 6(1)
Journalists lie too. Why aren't they included?
We agree that is a debate worth having, but it is a different one. This Bill is only about people in public office, and it expressly leaves out journalism.
"Nothing in this section applies to an act done for the purposes of journalism"Clause 12(4)
