Motion to sit in private

Friday, 6 December 2024 · Division No. 57 · Commons

1Ayes
49Noes
Defeated

597 MPs did not vote

proceduralGovernment defeatedPro Parliamentary Transparency(No)Pro Open Government(No)Pro Private Session(Yes)Parliamentary Procedure(Yes)

Voting Yes means

Support closing the session to the public and conducting business in private

Voting No means

Oppose closing the session to the public, insisting proceedings remain open and transparent

What happened: On 6 December 2024, the House of Commons voted on a motion to sit in private, which would have excluded the public and media from the parliamentary session. The motion was moved by Alex McIntyre and was defeated by 49 votes to 1. The vote was taken immediately under Standing Order No. 163, which requires such motions to be put without debate.

Why it matters: A motion to sit in private, if passed, would close the public gallery and remove media access from parliamentary proceedings, preventing citizens from observing or reporting on what their elected representatives discuss and decide. The overwhelming rejection of this motion preserves the principle of open parliamentary democracy, ensuring that the debates and decisions that followed in that session, including the second reading of the European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill and an adjournment debate on spray foam insulation, remained fully accessible to the public and press.

The politics: The single Aye vote came from within Labour's ranks, while the No votes were spread across Labour, Conservative, Democratic Unionist Party, Labour and Co-operative, Traditional Unionist Voice, Independent, Reform UK, and Ulster Unionist members. No party voted collectively in favour of the motion, and the result reflected a broad cross-party consensus against closing proceedings to public scrutiny. The motion attracted minimal parliamentary support and appears to have been a procedural formality rather than a serious political effort to restrict access.

How They Voted

Government position: No

Labour PartyWhipped No
3 Aye/32 No

3 rebels: Alex McIntyre, Andrew Lewin, Deirdre Costigan

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/6 No
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/5 No
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0 Aye/3 No
Independent
0 Aye/1 No
Reform UK
0 Aye/1 No
Traditional Unionist Voice
0 Aye/1 No
Ulster Unionist Party
0 Aye/1 No

3 MPs voted against their party whip

What They Said in the Debate

Peter Dowd

Labour · Bootle

Opposed

The Windsor Framework narrowed EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland to less than 3% and represents a successful negotiation; reopening it risks endless disputes with allies and destabilises the careful balance achieved.

Voted No

Stella Creasy

Labour · Walthamstow

Opposed

The 300 laws include human rights protections and equal treatment; the Bill would undermine fundamental democratic rights by removing European Court of Human Rights safeguards and breaches the Good Friday Agreement's equality principles.

Voted No

Claire Hanna

SDLP · Belfast South and Mid Down

Opposed

The Bill is a stunt that suppresses the Northern Ireland Assembly and creates health crises; acceptance of constitutional arrangements one doesn't prefer is the mark of true democracy, and Allister's actions drive constitutional change rather than solve problems.

Fleur Anderson

Labour · Putney

Opposed

Mutual enforcement has been dismissed by the EU Commission as 'magical thinking'; the Windsor Framework represents the only workable pragmatic deal struck through careful negotiation, not political ideology.

Voted No

Jim Allister

DUP · North Antrim

Supportive

The Windsor Framework surrenders 300 areas of law to EU control, creating a democratic deficit and effectively colonising Northern Ireland; the Bill restores UK sovereignty and equal citizenship through mutual enforcement arrangements and removes EU law supremacy.

Voted No

Sir Iain Duncan Smith

Conservative · Chingford and Woodford Green

Supportive

The Bill addresses a genuinely unworkable situation; mutual enforcement was originally proposed by the EU's own experts and should be the starting point for practical solutions.

Gavin Robinson

DUP · Belfast East

Supportive

Invest Northern Ireland cannot identify a single business investment resulting from the Windsor Framework; the arrangement has failed to deliver promised economic benefits.

Voted No

Robin Swann

UUP · South Antrim

Supportive

General product safety regulations coming into force next week will impose additional bureaucratic costs on UK suppliers; Northern Ireland is wrongly being required to facilitate EU requirements on its internal UK market.

Voted No

Related Votes

Motion to sit in private — Friday, 6 December 2024 | Beyond The Vote