50 signatures reached
To: Parliament
Require MPs to Abstain When a Vote Involves a Conflict of Interest
The Westminster and devolved parliaments of the United Kingdom should not permit MPs to vote upon issues in which they have a conflict of interest.
Why is this important?
Many MPs have secondary interests such as investments, businesses they own or hold a stake in, or guaranteed jobs that they may return to once they retire from parliament. These and other conflicts of interest should not be permitted to affect the outcome of a vote.
Currently MPs are required to declare such conflicts of interest, so that any bias of theirs is known prior to a debate, however there is currently no restriction on their ability to act upon such a conflict, rather than in the best interests of their constituents.
For example, during the vote upon bombing in Syria and renewal of Trident, many MPs voting in favour of these have investment or involvement in arms manufacturing, presenting a clear bias towards anything that increases military spending.
While these MPs should remain free to present their case, it seems only appropriate that they should be made to abstain, or to somehow prove that their intended choice represents the will of their constituents and not their own self-interest.
Currently MPs are required to declare such conflicts of interest, so that any bias of theirs is known prior to a debate, however there is currently no restriction on their ability to act upon such a conflict, rather than in the best interests of their constituents.
For example, during the vote upon bombing in Syria and renewal of Trident, many MPs voting in favour of these have investment or involvement in arms manufacturing, presenting a clear bias towards anything that increases military spending.
While these MPs should remain free to present their case, it seems only appropriate that they should be made to abstain, or to somehow prove that their intended choice represents the will of their constituents and not their own self-interest.
