Parliamentary Standards Bill — Clause 10 — Proceedings in Parliament — 1 Jul 2009 at 17:13

A very slim majority of MPs voted not to clarify that what an MP says in the House of Commons can be used by IPSA [the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority], in carrying out its role. The motion being voted on was to amend Clause 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Bill with the addition of the words in bold shown in the copy of the clause below:
No enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament is to prevent—

(a) the IPSA [Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority] from carrying out any of its functions;

(b) the Commissioner from carrying out any of the Commissioner’s functions;

(c) any evidence of words spoken by, or any other conduct of, a that Member of the House of Commons in proceedings in Parliament from being admissible in proceedings against a member of the House of Commons for an offence under section 9.

Section 9 of the Bill made it an offence for a Member of Parliament to make an expenses claim which is false or misleading in a material respect.

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 250.

Despite this being one of the closest reasonably well attended votes of the Parliament there was no debate on the substance of it due to the timetable. Some had worried that this was a potential first step on a slippery slope eroding the privilege afforded to MPs to say what they like in Parliament without fear of legal action.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con159 (+2 tell) 0083.9%
DUP3 0033.3%
Independent2 1050.0%
Lab25 246 (+2 tell)078.2%
LDem49 0077.8%
PC3 00100.0%
SDLP3 00100.0%
SNP6 0085.7%
Total:250 247079.3%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLabno
John AustinErith and ThamesmeadLab (minister)no
Margaret BeckettDerby SouthLabno
David BorrowSouth RibbleLab (minister)no
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabno
Andrew DismoreHendonLab (minister)no
Jim DowdLewisham WestLab (minister)no
David DrewStroudLab (minister)no
Mark FisherStoke-on-Trent CentralLabno
Paul FlynnNewport WestLab (minister)no
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)no
Lynne JonesBirmingham, Selly OakLab (minister)no
Andrew LoveEdmontonLab (minister)no
Fiona MactaggartSloughLab (minister)no
Alan MealeMansfieldLabno
Doug NaysmithBristol North WestLab (minister)no
Greg PopeHyndburnLab (minister)no
Gordon PrenticePendleLab (minister)no
John ReidAirdrie and ShottsLabno
Virendra SharmaEaling, SouthallLab (minister)no
Alan SimpsonNottingham SouthLabno
Gisela StuartBirmingham, EdgbastonLab (minister)no
David TaylorNorth West LeicestershireLab (minister)no
Rudi VisFinchley and Golders GreenLabno
Mike WoodBatley and SpenLabno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive