Recall of MPs Bill — New Clause 2 — Prompting New Election for an MP via a Petition of 500 or More Electors — 24 Nov 2014 at 17:45

MPs were considering the Recall of MPs Bill[1]. The majority of MPs voted against enabling a new election for a constituency's MP to be prompted by a petition of 500 or more electors to an election court alleging improper behaviour by their MP. This route to "recall" would have been added to the ways of triggering a new election already in the Bill which were an MP being convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment; or being suspended from the House of Commons for 10 sitting days (or 14 days).

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

MP Julian Huppert, who moved the rejected clause, provided an explanation of its intended purpose[2]:

  • This new Clause establishes a further recall condition or trigger, independent of Parliament or criminal conviction, whereby five hundred or more constituents may petition an election court alleging improper behaviour on the part of their MP.

While the proposed new clause required the petition to be made to an election court, it did not appear to require that court to consider the allegation(s) made in the petition. A separate new proposed new clause which was also debated did state:

  • The court must consider whether... it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.

This vote however was only on the new clause describing the petition element, not the new clause describing the role of the court.


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
Con153 (+2 tell) 14156.1%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab115 3146.1%
LDem0 40 (+2 tell)075.0%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 1033.3%
Total:269 62253.8%

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

Harriett BaldwinWest WorcestershireCon (front bench)aye
Jake BerryRossendale and DarwenConaye
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)aye
Mike FreerFinchley and Golders GreenConaye
Mark GarnierWyre ForestCon (front bench)aye
Richard GrahamGloucesterConaye
Daniel KawczynskiShrewsbury and AtchamConaye
Simon KirbyBrighton, KemptownConaye
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyCon (front bench)aye
Caroline NokesRomsey and Southampton NorthCon (front bench)aye
Mark PawseyRugbyCon (front bench)aye
Andrew PercyBrigg and GooleCon (front bench)aye
Iain StewartMilton Keynes SouthCon (front bench)aye
Craig WhittakerCalder ValleyCon (front bench)aye
Nick de BoisEnfield NorthCon (front bench)both
Paul FlynnNewport WestLab (minister)aye
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)aye
Albert OwenYnys MônLab (minister)aye
Nicholas DakinScunthorpeLab (minister)both

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