2.2.4 – The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive
On Tuesday 9 December the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Caroline Noakes, was required to cast a tie-breaking vote in the House of Commons. Tied votes in the House of Commons are exceptionally rare. The last occurred in 2019 and, before that, the previous tied vote had taken place in 1993 (although that vote was miscounted and was later expunged from the record).
The process followed in a tied vote is fundamentally different from that in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. In both of those bodies, the presiding officers (the Speaker of the House and the Vice President) are political figures. In the event of a tie, they therefore break it by voting for the motion.
The UK parliamentary situation is different. The Speaker of the House of Commons is meant to be an impartial adjudicator; indeed, when they become Speaker, they give up their party allegiance. As such, the Speaker does not cast a political vote in the House of Commons. Instead, they follow the Denison Convention, named after a former Speaker, John Denison, who sat in the Speaker’s Chair from 1857 to 1872.
The convention dictates that the Speaker of the House of Commons casts their vote in the most neutral way possible. They will therefore always vote to do one of two things:
1) Continue debate – If the Speaker’s vote can allow further debate on an issue, they will vote to do so. This depends on the nature of the vote and the stage of the legislative process. For example, if a bill were tied at Second Reading, the Speaker would vote for the bill so that it could be debated further in Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages. However, if the same bill were tied at Third Reading, the Speaker would vote differently.
2) Keep the status quo – If there is no room for further debate, the Speaker will vote for the status quo. This means they will vote:
- Against the Third Reading of any bill.
- Against any Motion of No Confidence.
- Against any amendment put forward by the House of Lords.
When explaining the convention in 2019 following a motion calling for parliamentary indicative votes on Brexit, the then Speaker, John Bercow, said: “In accordance with precedent and on the principle that important decisions following a vote should not be taken except by a majority, I cast my vote no.”
The vote that was tied last Tuesday concerned a Liberal Democrat bill requiring the government to begin negotiations with the European Union about joining a customs union. The vote was tied 100–100, and the Deputy Speaker said: “In accordance with precedent, I will cast the casting vote, aye, to allow further debate.” The vote was therefore settled by 101–100.
The bill itself is unlikely to pass. At the next reading, the government is likely to whip its MPs against it. However, some Labour MPs backed it, indicating growing pressure on the government to reconsider its relationship with the European Union. The bill is also a good example of the campaigning influence that third and minor parties can exert through the legislative process. While they may not be able to force through the substance of the bill, they can generate significant reporting on the issue, which can snowball into a more substantial public debate.