Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.