Independent Expert Panel Recommendations for Sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015 — Retrospective Action — 19 Oct 2021 at 14:41

The majority of MPs voted not to make retrospective, to a degree, a new rule saying sanctions from the Independent Expert Panel which considers complaints against MPs under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme may lead to a recall petition and a new election in the MP's constituency.

MPs were considering the following motion:

  • That—
  • (1) the following Standing Order be made:
  • “IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015
  • (1) The Chair of the IEP shall send to the Chair and Members of the Committee on Standards and to the Clerk of that Committee any report from a sub-panel of the IEP which he has referred to the Clerk of the House under subparagraph (5)(d) of Independent Expert Panel">Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) and which contains a determination for a sanction that would, if made by the Committee on Standards, engage the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
  • (2) Where a report has been sent to the Committee on Standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order the Committee of Standards shall make a report to the House in relation to the Member named in that report, setting out a recommendation for a suspension equal to that recommended by the sub-panel to run concurrently with any sanction imposed as a result of the sub-panel’s determination.
  • (3) Reports under paragraph (2) must be made no later than on the third sitting day after the report of the IEP sub-panel is sent to members of the Committee on Standards, save that the day on which the report is sent shall not be counted in calculating this period.
  • (4) If the Committee on Standards is unable to meet within 3 sitting days, the Chair shall, if satisfied that the report from the IEP sub-panel has been sent to all members of the Committee, make the report to the House from the Committee required under paragraph (2).”
  • (2) The following amendments to Standing Orders be made:
  • (a) In Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards), paragraph (1), at the end insert
  • “(c) in accordance with Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) to report to the House recommendations for sanctions to run concurrently with sanctions determined by a sub-panel of the IEP and implemented by the House.”
  • (b) In ICGS">Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS), paragraph (1), at the end, insert
  • “( ) a motion under paragraph (1) of this Order includes a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015), or a motion to implement both such a sanction and a sanction determined by a sub-panel of the IEP”.

The motion's purpose was explained by its mover during debate as being[1]:

  • to ensure that a sanction of suspension of a qualifying duration, made following a report from the independent expert panel, will lead to a recall petition

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • at end insert:
  • “(3) The provisions of Standing Order (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act) shall be applied in respect of any report from the Independent Expert Panel published before this Order is agreed which contains a determination for a sanction that, if it had been made by the Committee on Standards, would have engaged the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015, save that, notwithstanding the provisions of that Standing Order, the sanction recommended by the Committee on Standards in such a case, shall be limited to 14 days and the provisions of Standing Order No. 45A shall not apply in respect of any suspension imposed in consequence of such a recommendation, and the provisions of the Standing Order shall be interpreted as if the day this Order is agreed had been the day on which the Report was sent to Members of the Committee on Standards in accordance with that Standing Order.”.

--

Debate in Parliament |

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
Alba0 1050.0%
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con302 (+2 tell) 0084.0%
DUP3 0037.5%
Independent1 1040.0%
Lab1 158 (+2 tell)080.9%
LDem0 120100.0%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 36080.0%
Total:307 213082.0%

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

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Chris BryantRhonddaLab (minister)no

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