Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.