Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank those who have shown up for this debate; we may not have a large quantity here, but I am sure that we will have quality. My role this afternoon is primarily to introduce the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, outline some of the arguments that have been raised and give colleagues an opportunity to consider the issue.

Let me start by thanking the many thousands of people who signed this petition, which was started by Barry McIlhinney from Perth in Kinross-shire. It gathered more than 129,000 signatures, including 252 of my South Cotswolds constituents. It may not surprise anybody to hear that the four constituencies with the highest number of signatories were Fareham and Waterlooville, Newark, Romford and East Wiltshire—I shall leave it to hon. Members to spot the pattern.

Whatever view Members may take on the proposal, it is clear that the petition touches on what some commentators have called a crisis of confidence in our democracy: the suspicion—we can debate whether it is a fair one—that some MPs are here less to represent the interests of their constituents, and more to represent their own. The petition reflects a wider public interest in the relationship between voters and those who represent them, and in how that relationship operates in the intervals between general elections. The key question is, when voters decide who to vote for, what exactly are they choosing? Some argue that voters elect an individual, full stop, and that what matters most is the person whose name appears on the ballot paper. However, others suggest that party affiliation is a significant part of how voters make their decision, as they view a candidate’s political party as shorthand for a particular set of values and attitudes.

I would suggest that in the real world, for many voters, the decision that they make in the privacy of the polling booth at a general election is a complicated calculation: an algorithm involving party values, historical loyalties, headline policies, party leaders, local reputations and individual personalities. In our first-past-the-post system, that also increasingly includes tactical voting, as in many cases voters feel that they must choose not simply the candidate that they most admire, but the one most likely to defeat the candidate that they most fear. That is one of the quirks—some may even say flaws—of our electoral system. MPs may like to think that every vote that they win is the result of their particular blend of wit, charm and intelligence, but I suspect that, if elections were decided purely on our unique personalities, many of us might not be in this Chamber at all.

My point is that voters often consider a range of factors when deciding how to cast their vote. This petition invites us to consider what should happen if one such factor—political party affiliation—changes during the course of a Parliament. Political parties clearly play a very real role in getting their candidates elected, investing time, money, wisdom and infrastructure. Parties pay the deposits and give their candidates training, campaign support and access to networks of volunteers. It could be argued that an exceptionally cynical candidate could simply align themselves with the party that had the most successful campaigning machine, and then promptly jump ship once they arrive here—I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody would do such a thing.

During a general election campaign, the people knocking on doors, delivering leaflets early in the morning, getting out the vote late in the evening and standing outside polling stations in the rain are often long-standing party members, supporting the person they see as their party’s candidate. Many would argue that party affiliation forms an important part of the democratic bargain made with voters at a general election. However, at the same time, others emphasise that MPs are elected as representatives rather than as delegates, and that they must retain the freedom to exercise their judgment and follow their conscience once elected.

This petition therefore invites us to consider where the balance should lie between those two contrasting principles. The question is whether the current constitutional arrangements strike the correct balance, or whether there should be some additional form of democratic mechanism when an MP decides to move to another party.

Some argue that a by-election would allow voters to confirm whether they still support their MP after a change in party affiliation. They also argue that, if the defecting MP is sufficiently confident in their wit, charm and intelligence and that they hold a special place in the hearts of their constituents, they should not be afraid to return to the polls.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

All political parties undertake a vast amount of data collection on their voter base. A good proportion of that data illustrates that the vast majority of people will cast their vote based on the political party rather than the individual. The individual carries less weight in someone’s mind when they cast their vote. Therefore, does the hon. Member agree that triggering a by-election on the basis of a defection is crucial to ensure that voters are represented by someone who reflects how the vast majority cast their vote at the ballot box?

[Dr Savage]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point. My main job today, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, is to present both sides of the argument, but the point about data on voting intentions, which we work so hard to glean on doorsteps, is a key factor in the debate.

Others raise concerns that a requirement for a by-election could have unintended consequences, including potentially strengthening the power of party leaderships or discouraging MPs from following their conscience due to legitimate dissent. At this point, I want to clarify that when talking about defections, I am not talking about the case where an MP loses the Whip for reasons to do with the leadership, but about voluntary defections undertaken by an MP themselves. I do not think any of us would want a world where party Whips could threaten an MP with a mandatory by-election if we displease them in some way.

Public opinion on this question appears to be mixed, although polling suggests it is an issue on which many people hold strong views. Some surveys indicate that around 40% of respondents believe that it is unacceptable for an MP to defect, while others suggest that a majority of voters think a defection should trigger some sort of electoral test. Those numbers do not resolve the constitutional question, but they suggest that people far outside Westminster really care about this matter.

It is also worth putting the question into perspective. Party defections in this country are relatively rare, although they obviously sometimes occur in clusters during periods of political turbulence—possibly such as we are going through now. The last MPs to resign their seats and seek fresh mandate after defecting were Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless in 2014, when they left the Conservative party to join UKIP. They refought their seats in by-elections.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making the case well on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Over the years, there have been a number of examples of some of my former Conservative colleagues ending up alongside Lib Dems in the House of Commons. In those circumstances, is the hon. Lady of the view that there should have been a by-election for those MPs to get their mandates restated?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. What we are talking about is the principle of the matter rather than specific defections from any one party to another.

This constitutional question has also been considered by Parliament previously. In 2011, a private Member’s Bill proposed that MPs who changed their party affiliation would have to face a by-election, and in 2020, another Bill proposed extending the Recall of MPs Act 2015 so that a voluntary change of party could trigger a recall petition. Neither progressed through Parliament, but the fact that the issue has arisen more than once suggests that it raises enduring questions about representation and accountability.

I would like to share some perspectives from other countries, because this is not a uniquely British debate, and other democracies have taken different approaches. Some, such as India, have adopted strict anti-defection laws under which MPs can lose their seat if they leave the party on whose ticket they were elected. Indian MPs are also, for the most part, compelled to vote with the Whip, which must make votes very, very boring. Others, such as New Zealand, have legislation designed to discourage what is sometimes referred to as “waka jumping”—I am reliably informed that that is effectively jumping from one canoe to another, which I can say from personal experience sounds like a very bad idea—although that approach has also prompted debate about the balance of power between MPs and party leadership. South Africa experimented with allowing MPs to cross the Floor, but later decided that that was a poor idea and prohibited it. That shows that views can change about how best to preserve electoral legitimacy.

The UK system has its own traditions and constitutional principles. Party affiliation plays an important role in how Governments are formed and how legislation passes, but MPs are also expected to exercise independent judgment. All of that means that there is no simple or obvious answer to the question raised by the petition of whether the current arrangements already strike the right balance between representation, independence and accountability, or whether there might be merit in exploring alternative mechanisms.

What is clear from the petition is that many members of the public care deeply about the relationship between voters and their representatives, how it works in practice and whether they feel that they are being represented in this place. I very much look forward to hearing the views of Members from across the House.

16:43

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is unfortunate that although we have a 3-hour allocation to discuss this important topic, other Members of this House that have not felt it worthy of coming along to do so, despite having changed party in this parliamentary Session or in the previous one. It would have been interesting to have gained their views. I thank the over 129,000 individuals who signed the petition, illustrating that they care deeply and are passionate about a subject that is ultimately about trust.

I have been fortunate enough to represent Keighley and Ilkley for more than six years now, facing an election twice in that time in two very different political environments. In 2019, I was elected in a Conservative landslide, and more recently in 2024, I was elected during a time when national results were very much going the other way. Keighley and Ilkley is—or should be—a classic bellwether seat, and up until the last election, there had never been both a Labour Government nationally and a Conservative MP locally since the creation of the seat in 1885. In fact, ahead of the 2024 general election, 12 major polling companies predicted a Labour landslide in Keighley and Ilkley. Electoral Calculus gave me a 97% chance of losing my seat. I do not make these points merely to blow my own trumpet; the point I am making is that politics is ultimately about trust.

When we are elected by our constituents, they are putting their trust in us. They are trusting us not only to be a strong advocate for the area that we represent, but to stand by our manifesto pledges, both at a local level and those of the political party we represent. We stand by the values and commitments of the party we represent. The vast majority of us in this House are supported by volunteers who share our values, often hold party membership and support our policies, which have implications for all our constituencies.

Owing to the Representation of the People Act 1969, at every voting booth across the country our electors are greeted not only by our own names but by our party names and party logos. They put their cross in the box against a name and a party that they wish to represent them. A proportion of people out there will, of course, vote for the individual who they feel is most committed to representing them, but they are also casting their vote for a political party.

As has been demonstrated by all political parties, through the data that they collect, a proportion of the electorate cast their vote based on the national political party, rather than the individual who has been chosen to stand in that local area. It therefore comes down to the point that was made in the opening remarks from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds: this petition invites us to debate the difference between the individual and the party.

I do feel that when an individual is standing for a political party, if that individual then chooses to defect, cross the Floor of the House and join another political party, it is only right that a by-election is triggered. That would give the electorate the absolute reassurance that they can cast their vote according to political party. Likewise, if they want to reassert their trust in the individual regardless of the political party they are now associated with, that should happen in a by-election.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I do not want to downplay his greatness as a local constituency MP, but I am sure that, like me, he recalls the 2019 election in which he was first elected, and how many conversations we had with voters on the doorstep about the relative merits of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That undoubtedly was the biggest issue driving many people to vote, alongside the desire to get Brexit done. Does that reinforce the point that many people vote on the basis of the national picture and to select a Prime Minister rather than a local MP?

[Robbie Moore]

That is my point. While a lot of us, as advocates of constituency areas, do our best day in, day out, advocating on behalf of our constituents and campaigning on the local issues that matter to give us the biggest advantage possible by building up our authenticity on those issues, a good proportion of the electorate vote based on the political party with which the candidates are associated.

In 2019, a good proportion of the electorate could not stand the possibility of a Labour Government and voted to get Brexit done, which we advocated for. I know from conversations on the doorstep that there was an element of the electorate who had never voted Conservative before, but who decided to vote for us in 2019 based on the national offering. That builds into my point that, whenever an individual defects—as happened recently north of the border, with the defection of a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament to the Liberal Democrats—a by-election should be triggered. It will be interesting to see what the Liberal Democrat policy is on that.

Trust is at stake, because too often disillusionment builds up among the wider electorate, and defections exaggerate that.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I was following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments closely and agreeing with them until he got to the point about Prime Ministers, because is it not a consistent position that if a hon. Member changes their political party there should be a by-election, therefore if there is a change in leader, as the Conservatives have got into the habit of doing, there should be a general election?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely take the view that a defection at the local constituency level should trigger a by-election, which will ultimately restore the voters’ ability to decide who they want to represent them, whether that is the individual who has changed political party or someone else. When there is a change in the leader of any political party, it is up to the MPs of that party to determine whether that individual represents the party in the role of its leader. That applies to all political parties. The reason is that when an individual goes to vote at the ballot box, they are predominantly voting for two things: the individual who represents them at a local level, and the political party. The name of the leader of that party is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.

I believe that there is a difference, regardless of who is in charge politically at a national level, between a change of leader and a change in the direct relationship between the constituent and the individual who represents them while standing on behalf of a political party. As I say, the name of the leader of the political party is not on the ballot paper, so I think there is a difference.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away again and I do not wish to push this point too far, because I personally do not think that there should be a general election if the ruling party changes its leader. However, the thrust of his argument was that what is in people’s minds when they vote is the political party and the name of the leader; he said it was about the difference between Boris Johnson and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If that is important, and the leader changes, and so does the party’s political programme—that relates to the wording on the ballot paper of the political party and has been there since the Representation of the People Act 1969—I think there is a solid argument for holding a general election. It is not an argument that I completely agree with, but I would be interested to hear his response to it.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for that point, but my point is that when a general election takes place, the individual voter casts their vote for an individual associated with a political party, which has a mandate—if it gets into power—based on a manifesto. The party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper. It is the manifesto that is associated with that political party. I do feel there is a difference.

I am strongly of the view that if an individual Member of Parliament associated with a political party decides to change course and stand for a different political party —crosses the Floor of the House—an automatic by-election should be triggered, which ultimately gives their constituents the right to choose. That is slightly different from the debate about political leadership, because a party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.

[John Lamont]

Having reflected on the point made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), I would add that the key difference is surely that MPs are elected by their constituents, but the Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch, on the basis that that person can command the confidence of the House of Commons. That is the basis of the monarch’s decision. We do not have a presidential system, whereas we do elect constituency MPs. The appointment of the Prime Minister is based on the monarch’s judgment on who has the confidence of the House of Commons.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which I think aligns with my own point: it is the make-up of the political party that gains the confidence of the House, and therefore its leader is appointed Prime Minister, should they get a mandate to be so, based on the numbers.

Where I do not feel that a by-election should be triggered aligns with the points made by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. If a Member of Parliament is unfortunate enough to lose the Whip and therefore sits in the House as an independent, I do not feel that that should necessarily trigger a by-election, because it might be subject to circumstances outside that Member’s control—political difference associated with a particular policy and therefore voting the other way. The Whips may use that as a mechanism for removing the party Whip, but I do not think that that should trigger a by-election in those circumstances. I want to be clear on that.

To summarise, politics is about trust, and at a time when the relationship between politicians and the electorate is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly fractious, it is vital that our democratic system holds us to account for the promises on which we as individuals associated with a political party were elected, the platform on which we chose to stand for election, and ultimately the manifesto commitments that we stood by.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I am sorely tempted to say that if somebody else would like to take the Chair, I will come down and do an hour on this myself, but happily for colleagues, I am not allowed to.

16:56

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am loath to say that I am delighted to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger, because I feel we are all missing out on a good hour’s worth of content with you there rather than here, but it really is a pleasure to serve under you.

Since the 2024 general election, we have seen the start of a slow procession of former Conservative Ministers and Members of Parliament moving to Reform UK. These are people who spent years in government and claimed they were there to make a difference—and they did leave a difference behind them, but that difference was far too many crumbling public services, a cost of living crisis and a legacy of broken promises. Rather than accepting responsibility for their actions, they have crossed the Floor for a new start, making no attempt to rebuild the public trust they broke.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) alluded to a pattern of very large concentrations of signatures making their way on to this petition—one of politicians prioritising their own political future over the parties their constituents voted for. I understand why some voters feel betrayed and that their MPs are not moving to another party from a principled stance. These MPs clearly feel they are fleeing a sinking ship and are hoping that voters are too distracted to notice. But their constituents have noticed, with almost 130,000 people signing the petition that has resulted in this debate, including more than 200 in my Hazel Grove constituency. I understand people’s frustrations, especially as many of the constituencies that had the highest numbers of signatures were those whose MPs had defected. They feel, rightly, that something has been taken from them. For that reason, some feel betrayed.

Most voters will not have read the full manifestos of all the candidates standing for election, but I can see why people would be unhappy, particularly when their MP joins a party that does not align with their views and values or whom they thought they had voted for. We are talking about a party whose former Welsh leader was imprisoned for a bribery conviction related to Russian connections, a party filled with swivel-eyed Trump supporters, a party that platformed a vaccine conspiracy theorist at its most recent party conference—it is hardly surprising that people do not feel their values are reflected in Reform UK.

However, our electoral system means that people vote for an individual to represent their area, not directly for a party. Our system is not set up automatically to call a by-election whenever an MP defects or is removed from a political party, or indeed when a party of government moves firmly away from a manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, the disillusionment that voters are experiencing points to something larger—a fundamental problem with how our democratic system currently works.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our political system needs fundamental change to restore the trust that voters have lost. First, we need to change the way we elect our MPs.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the hon. Member gets on to how we should change the whole system, I am keen to understand the Liberal Democrats’ view on the petition specifically. Should a defection trigger a by-election?

[Lisa Smart]

No. The Liberal Democrat position is that elections should happen on a regular basis. We would re-implement the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, because we think it is healthy for people to know how long they are electing somebody for, rather than leaving the power in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I believe very firmly that the ultimate power should sit with voters rather than politicians, and that voters should know how long the term is. They should be able to boot people out at the next election, rather than having a special election that costs money and that may end up with the same result, but may not. We do not agree with the petition. However, we believe very strongly in people’s right to express their views through a petition.

We need to change the system and the way we elect our MPs. Under our current system, a Government can win roughly two thirds of the seats on roughly one third of the votes. Millions of people are represented by someone they did not vote for. Seats bear almost no relation to votes cast, and far too many people feel forced to vote for the person they dislike the least just to stop the candidate they really do not want to be elected. Proportional representation would change that. The Liberal Democrats have been advocating for a change in our electoral system for a long time. We already use proportional systems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The vast majority of democracies worldwide use them.

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

If it is on the subject of PR, I will happily give way.

[John Lamont]

It is. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we have had that debate in the UK? Part of Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s coalition agreement was a referendum on the alternative vote, and the British people rejected it in very large numbers.

[Lisa Smart]

I could not be more delighted to go into details about different voting systems. The hon. Gentleman will know that AV is a preferential system, not a proportional one. I am talking about proportional representation. AV would have been a better system than first past the post, but a proportionate system would be even better. It has long been in the Liberal Democrat manifesto that that would mean fairer representation and more people having their say.

[Graham Stringer]

I am sure that everybody in this room is familiar with the arguments for and against PR. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) gave a very balanced speech. There was only one thing that I thought was unbalanced: the argument that somehow there would be less tactical voting in a PR system. A PR system is actually set up and designed for tactical voting. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) gave an opinion on that.

[Lisa Smart]

Many people, when talking about tactical voting, mean voting to stop somebody: a person has a preferred party or candidate, but lends their vote to somebody else to stop a third party they really do not want getting in. There are many different proportional systems—indeed, we have different systems in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and I would happily debate many of them, but I think it would test the patience of this Chamber if I were to get further into the weeds about my favourites. I recommend the Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform panel from the Liberal Democrat spring conference, where a number of us spent the weekend. I very much enjoyed being on that panel, which did get into the weeds. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but I assure hon. Members that it was a packed house with standing room only.

I will move on to the need to change and reform the House of Lords. It is simply indefensible that unelected peers continue to make laws for life in a modern democracy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to replacing it with a chamber that has a proper democratic mandate—one that reflects the country it serves, rather than the Prime Minister of the day. In a general election, the power sits with electors over who their MPs are. If they do not like something that their MP has done, they can choose somebody else at the next general election. Voters have precisely no power to do so with Members of the House of Lords. There are peers currently sitting in the House of Lords who have moved parties, and there is no mechanism to remove them for doing so.

Thirdly, the ministerial code must be enshrined in law. The fact that scandal after scandal has come out of previous Governments, and indeed this one, shows why there should be a set of legally enforceable expectations for Ministers and those in positions of power. Without that in law, we cannot guarantee that they will act with integrity, especially given that former Conservative Ministers are leaving the party rather than allowing themselves to be held to account. Right now, Ministers who act corruptly or behave improperly face, at worst, a quiet resignation and a comfortable future elsewhere. That is not accountability. Enshrining the ministerial code in legislation would mean that there are real consequences for those who abuse the public trust.

The recipient of a number of these defections is Reform UK, but it is not a party of insurgents challenging the establishment. It is more accurately described as a scrapyard for the very people who were the establishment and failed. Rather than accepting the public’s verdict on their failures in government, those politicians are seeking refuge in a party that wants to make us all less safe by dragging the UK out of the European convention on human rights, asking for payment for NHS services and platforming conspiracy theorists. Although by-elections for those who defect may not be mandated, the voters in those seats have the ultimate power—the power of their vote, come the next election—and I hope they will use it at every available opportunity.

17:06

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this debate on automatic by-elections following Member defections. I thank everybody across the country who has signed the petition. I have brought with me a list of every MP who has ever defected. Given the lack of a time constraint, we could go through it, but I would prefer to concentrate on the arguments.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on introducing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made an excellent contribution with some very powerful arguments indeed, made all the more persuasive by the fact that he is a much-loved local Member of Parliament. He has as much personal support as party support, and has defied political gravity in recent times. I absolutely sympathise with and understand a lot of the arguments he makes. I will outline an alternative viewpoint that relates not necessarily to principle, but to practicality and the challenges that may arise if a change of law were brought in to deal with the ongoing issue of Members choosing to change from one party to another.

I fully sympathise with the frustration that many voters feel when their Member of Parliament chooses to defect to another party. At a time when our country faces many pressing challenges, it is easy to understand why many people feel as though their representatives, if they defect, are choosing party politics over real-life concerns. I would not deny the reality that many voters choose their candidate in an election with party labels in mind. We should not be arrogant enough to assume that everyone voted for us as individuals, regardless of our party alignment. Despite my hon. Friend’s popularity, it is absolutely party alignments, labels and manifestoes that persuade people at general elections. We can do our best to be great servants to those we seek to represent, but much of the time that decision is made on a wider, more national position.

Like most Members, I am proud to work alongside like-minded individuals who share my core beliefs about how we can change our country for the better. Political parties have been an established part of our system for more than three centuries, and they have an irreplicable role in ensuring that the business of government and opposition can work effectively.

John Grobham Howe is said to be the first MP to have defected when, in 1698, he switched allegiance from the Whigs to the Tories, so the discussion today is certainly not about a new phenomenon. It is ultimately only Members themselves who can know their motivations for choosing to leave their existing party. I know that many Members would consider it entirely dishonourable to do so without seeking a mandate from their constituents, and I fully understand why many think that allowing a by-election to take place after defecting is very much the right thing to do. However, making that an automatic requirement could have unintended consequences that would only undermine Members’ standing as elected representatives of the people.

We who serve in this House do so as representatives of our constituents above all else, regardless of which party we represent. We are elected to do what we think is in the best interests of our constituents, above all other considerations. If a Member chooses to defect, that should be because they have judged, rightly or wrongly, that doing so is in the best interests of their constituents. Their constituents are, of course, free to disagree with that judgment, and may well choose to elect a representative of a different party at a later election. However, if we wish to uphold the principles that have made our political system one of the most enduring in the world, Members must be deemed fit to serve as representatives on the basis of their record of serving their constituents’ interests, and not simply on the basis of their party label.

[Robbie Moore]

I hope that I am not going to lose the Whip by taking a slightly different view from what seems to be my party’s position. Why would an individual not stand as an independent, if he or she had the confidence of getting elected? Surely there is a huge advantage in standing under the brand of a political party, because that inevitably brings a good element of the voter base to that individual. Will my hon. Friend expand on the difference between standing as an independent and standing as a member of a political party?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Absolutely. There is a real challenge here, and I agree with the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. Leaving one political party in the House of Commons and joining a distinct grouping is one thing, but independence is a challenge, as I saw on local level when I was a councillor: some councillors were in the independent group, but there were also independent independents. The independent group had, in many ways, a political agenda, and started to work around that. If we were to bring in legislation, defining true independence could become quite challenging. Members may start to work together around certain political issues, and form a political direction, which would actually make them no different from any other small party in the House of Commons.

I am sympathetic to the point, and the challenges around situations that may lead an individual from being party aligned to going independent are varied, but although I agree with the principle, we are concerned with the practicality. On issues such as this, the Conservative party has always been a broad church, so I am sure my hon. Friend and I can agree to disagree today. I do not think that there is any question of his being called into our Whips Office straight after the debate; it would certainly be very unfair if he were.

That the voters choose an individual to be their sole representative is one of the greatest strengths of our constitution, ensuring a direct link between Members and their constituents. I take issue with the views of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on PR, which would break the link between local people and an individual. It would almost make this entire debate irrelevant. How would we have a by-election if someone defected? Would the entire country vote in the by-election, to make sure that it is truly proportionally representative? That would not work. I have always been a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, which I believe is the best way to get representation of the people in this country. We put this matter to the test in a referendum not that long ago, and people made their views very clear.

[Lisa Smart]

We have not discussed PR sufficiently this afternoon. Does the hon. Member accept that there are different voting systems of a proportionate nature, some of which retain the constituency link?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons.

One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party.

As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict.

Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged.

This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.

[Graham Stringer]

I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Things have changed over time, and I dread to think how many by-elections we might have had in recent years had we needed one every time someone was appointed to the Cabinet. I suspect that would have cost the public purse something quite significant. In the period of which the hon. Member speaks, there was a slower churn of those in the Cabinet, and there was not quite the political turmoil that we have seen in recent years, which would make such a situation challenging. It is a fair point, though, because the change of circumstance in that situation is far less than the change of circumstance of moving from one party to another.

As I have said, it is not the principle of the issue that concerns me, but the practicality. If Parliament did introduce legislation, it would have to be absolutely spot on and watertight, to ensure that it did not degrade the link between individual Members of Parliament and their constituencies, and that the party system did not become more empowered through any such change. That is my principal concern.

Our constitution and political system have drawn their strength from the respect we have for tried and tested convention, and we must always be wary of the danger of rushed constitutional change and unintended consequences. We need only to look at the recent past to see how previous attempts to enforce rigidity within our system have failed. Most notably, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which was seen as an important tool during the coalition Government, ultimately was viewed to have failed and was rightly repealed during the last Parliament.

The independence of Parliament and of an individually elected representative to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents is one of the longest-standing conventions in our political system. While I sympathise with the frustrations of the petitioners and understand their desire to see the proposed change enacted, I believe we would be unwise to surrender that independence.

17:18

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

I, for one, feel robbed of your contribution to this debate, Sir Roger; I think it would have been fascinating. It genuinely has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and a privilege to listen to the debate. I have certainly learned a lot about historical precedents and other things; it has been fascinating.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and the many thousands of people across the country who have signed the petition and taken part in our important democratic and parliamentary processes. I also thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his thought-provoking contributions—it is important that we all challenge ourselves in this place—and, as I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has given me lots of food for thought as well. I thank everyone for their contributions.

At the last general election, the public voted for change following years of Conservative chaos. We saw a whopping 23 by-elections in just four and a half years prior to 2024. Those by-elections were caused by lobbying scandals, tractor videos, sexual misconduct, bullying—a horrible track record of MPs falling short of the standards that the public rightly expect of them. It is absolutely right that, in such circumstances, we have by-elections and the public are able to get rid of their MPs in that way. However, while I personally share the view of, I think, many of the petitioners from certain constituencies that defecting from the Conservatives to Reform is an awful thing to do—I notice that none of the hon. Members concerned is here today—I am not sure that it reaches the bar of requiring a by-election.

I have listened carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members from across the House, and I understand the concern at the heart of the petition. I am a true believer in party politics. I fundamentally believe, to quote the Labour party’s clause IV, that

“by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone”.

Only by working together with shared values can we ever truly achieve change.

I wanted to flag that in particular in answer to the point that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about being an independent. We can bring so much more when we work together with our shared values, and that is a fundamental way in which we have been able to achieve change throughout history.

I joined the Labour party because I grew up in the ’80s and early ’90s under a Tory Government who seemed to accept that unemployment, inequality and poverty was a price worth paying. I made that choice to join a political party, and I could never be part of a party that believed in, or sought to uphold, a system of unequal privilege in this country.

I am Labour for a reason: I saw that only one party, throughout its history, has fought to give more power and opportunity to ordinary people, built great institutions for the many, such as the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start, and provided rights and protections for working people—and that only one party, at its heart, has the fundamental view that every child deserves to flourish, whatever their background.

[Robbie Moore]

I am always amazed when a Minister says at the Dispatch Box, “I have listened very carefully to the contributions,” yet they are reading from a speech that was written before they turned up to the debate. Let me ask the Minister this. A proportion of people will vote for the individual based not only on their name, but on their association with a political party. If they change their political allegiance during the Parliament, how does the Minister think that is fair to the wider electoral base?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman is very impatient, because I was barely getting started on my speech. I will address that, because it is an important question that we have to challenge ourselves with, and it is right that we are here to debate it today, but I wanted to set out the primacy of party politics because, to me, it is about values. It is about what we believe in, and what kind of country and world we would like to build.

While I disagree fundamentally on many issues with Opposition Members, I recognise and respect that so many of them hold equally strong beliefs and values as those of us on the Government Benches, and that they are here to champion those party values in the name of public service, too. I appreciate—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share this view—that when we cast our ballots at general elections, so many of us do so with a specific party manifesto, set of values or policy priorities in mind. People often elect the party that they want to govern based on a set of principles and priorities that they support or at least believe are preferable to those of the other parties.

As we have heard, people are also voting, albeit indirectly, for a particular Prime Minister. We cannot assume that the public do not see the weeks of general election coverage. The Prime Minister was on the front of our manifesto. People know that they are voting for a Prime Minister, because they know that the party with the largest number of MPs will send that person to 10 Downing Street.

When an elected MP leaves a political party, it is entirely understandable that voters may feel that the contract between them and their local MP has been broken, that trust has been broken and that a remedy, such as a by-election, is required to repair it. They may feel that they voted for that person not as an individual, but because of the shared values they believed they represented. They may feel strongly that they do not share the values of the new party that the MP has moved to. All of that is entirely understandable.

While I acknowledge why the petitioners—and, as we have heard, some in this place—may want to see a by-election to repair that, I believe that it is up to those MPs themselves to examine their conscience and their relationship with their voters, and not for this place to tell them what their principles should be. I have enough respect for and faith in the British public that, when that individual next goes back to their constituents to ask them for the sacred privilege, which we are so lucky to hold, of representing them in this place, the public will make their decision on the basis of all the evidence. They will decide whether that MP has their interests at heart, and whether they jumped ship out of principle—we have heard examples of that—or out of shameless political ambition. I will not point to any particular instances that we may have seen of that recently.

It is true that, while values tend to stay the same, parties can shift and evolve. I have seen that with my own party, as hon. Members have discussed. For example, in 2019, the British public had their say on whether they felt the Labour party had moved too far from where they were, or from where they felt we ought to be. Many people wrestled with that. Ultimately, we should have enough faith in the British public that they will assess the decision that their MP has made in defecting to another party and have their say. Some MPs have won after defecting to another party; others have lost. Ultimately, the public will weigh it all up and pass their judgment.

As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley flagged, it is also important to remember that the public will make their judgment on the basis of a number of issues, not just the party allegiance of the MP. Despite the political differences I have with colleagues in this House, we have all come here to champion our communities and constituencies. Day in, day out, we support our constituents with casework issues, highlight the noteworthy work our local charities and organisations undertake across our communities, raise local issues closest to our constituents’ hearts and fix problems. As we all know, that vital work is personal to us individually, no matter which political party we come from. As such, much of the value of being an MP comes directly from our work with constituents, and they will ultimately price that into the decisions that they make.

It has been a long-standing constitutional principle in this country, most famously put forward by Edmund Burke, that MPs should deliberate and use their reason and judgment, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, and not simply be a delegate of either party or populist opinion. A by-election on the basis of a defection would undermine that principle.

If we mandated that an MP must lose their seat the moment they leave their party, we would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy. We would also shift from a system in which an MP’s first responsibility is to their constituents, to one where, once elected, they are accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster. As the Prime Minister himself has said, “Country first; party second.”

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for the Minister’s analysis. I wonder whether she applies the same logic to her colleagues who have lost the Labour Whip because they have not complied with instructions to vote for Government policy that their constituents do not agree with.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. There is always a balance and a trade-off, which we all make as MPs, between that judgment and a sense of shared and collective responsibility. It comes back to the point I made at the beginning: we cannot achieve much on our own. We achieve much more when we are together, and political parties rise or fall on unity. It is for every MP to decide where their conscience lies. If they genuinely believe that their party is going against the principles and the will of their constituents, they have the opportunity to make that decision, but, ultimately, they must pay the price by losing the Whip. That is party discipline and collective responsibility. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important challenge, which we all think about often.

In the scenario that I described, in which we shifted to a system in which, once elected, an MP is accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster, MPs who disagree with their party’s leadership, or feel that their political party is moving in a direction that they are uncomfortable with, may lose an important way to express their dissatisfaction. In the last Parliament, former MPs defected from the Conservative party because many felt that they were unable to deliver on the promises they made to their country. I understand the appeal of an automatic by-election to petitioners and to some Members of this House, but that would not make our parliamentary democracy stronger.

We must also consider the more practical impact of the petition’s proposal on our constituents. We all know the importance of our constituents having their own voices represented in Parliament. A by-election is a significant event. Members across the House know that it is costly to the public purse but, more importantly, it disrupts a constituency’s representation in this place. During a by-election campaign the seat is effectively vacant; casework stalls, the community loses its voice in Parliament for weeks or months, and the focus shifts to campaigning and the result’s implications for the Government of the day, rather than the issues that matter most to local residents.

Under our current system, when an MP changes affiliation, that work continues uninterrupted. The MP remains in post, serving their constituents and helping to support them with local issues. Naturally, that does not mean that MPs should be unaccountable for defecting to another party, but, as I have said, the remedy for that already exists in a general election. Of course, if an MP feels it is necessary to seek a fresh mandate, they are free to resign from both their party and their seat and fight a by-election immediately. I personally think that that would demonstrate an integrity that the public would welcome. In either case, the crucial thing is that MPs remain accountable to their constituents.

We do, of course, have a mechanism—

[John Lamont]

I apologise for disrupting the Minister’s flow, but I would like to ask her to clarify what she just said. She seems to be arguing that she is opposed to a by-election happening at the point of defection, but I think she hinted at a personal view that was contrary to the view that she had previously been articulating.

[Anna Turley]

Forgive me; my view, and that of the Government, is very clear. It is for each hon. Member to decide; it is not for the Government or Parliament to have a mechanism that forces people. People should examine their conscience: if they feel that a by-election would enable them to rebuild trust with their constituents, it is important that they consider that. However, it is not for Parliament to mandate that for those who defect. It is about integrity. If they believe that they have broken a promise that they made to people, then that is up to them.

We already have a mechanism to remove MPs during the course of a Parliament. Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, by-elections are triggered by custodial sentences, suspension from the House or false expenses claims. Some have argued that we should add defection to that list, but I strongly urge against that. The core philosophy of recall is that it is triggered by conduct, not a change in values or even, dare I say it, political ambition. Of course, I agree that it is right that MPs who fall below ethical standards or break the law are held to account for their behaviour, but to conflate political disagreement or even naked opportunism with ethical misconduct would set a dangerous precedent. Finding oneself at odds with the direction of one’s party or wanting to jump on the latest populist bandwagon is not a lapse of behavioural standards; it is part of political life, and I believe the public can be trusted to see that and make a judgment for themselves.

The Government believe—and I believe too, just to clarify for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—that our current constitutional arrangements strike the right balance. They preserve much-needed stability in democracy and enable MPs who do change political parties to continue their vital constituency work, while reserving the public’s right to judge the work and principles of that MP at the ballot box. As chair of the Labour party and a proud member of this Labour Government, I strongly believe in political parties providing competing visions of the kind of world and the kind of country we would like to see and seeking a mandate from the public to enact them.

It is in the nature of our democracy, to support effective government in this country, that a party is able to command a majority in this House. Party values allow us to build our vision, turn our manifestos into reality, provide collective leadership and service, and enact the change that the country voted for at a general election. I understand why the petitioners and some Members across the House feel that an automatic by-election would add another layer of accountability in this place, but for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that those changes would in any way enhance our parliamentary democracy.

17:33

[Dr Savage]

At the start of the debate, I suggested that we might make up for lack of quantity with quality, and I think we have delivered on that promise. I thank colleagues from across the Chamber for their most thoughtful, fascinating and wide-ranging contributions to the debate. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her interesting diversion into the many other ways in which we could help to restore faith in our democracy, such as a fairer voting system and House of Lords reform.

I echo the regret expressed by a number of colleagues that parliamentary procedure precludes the Chair from jumping into the conversation. I am sure that that would have been a most fascinating—

[Lisa Smart]

Hour.

[Dr Savage]

Yes—but I believe that this Chamber will be available until at least 7.30 pm, so perhaps we could have an impromptu seminar.

I trust that Mr McIlhinney and the other signatories to the petition will feel that we have done justice to their concerns and will appreciate the calibre of the debate, even if the constituencies that I mentioned at the outset are not going to be dusting off their ballot boxes any time soon. I thank everyone present for their most valuable contributions.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the hon. Lady said, there are occasions when quality makes up for quantity, and the House has behaved in an exemplary manner this afternoon. Thank you for your courtesy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections.

17:32

Sitting adjourned.